RJM,

JAS

Is that a new SCOTUS acronym for what you predict the Supreme Court will do with the rehearing? [Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised, you are always very abreast of what goes on up there. I often wonder if you have a spy.]

Is it some code for "apple"?

[This message was edited by R.J. MacReady on 07-24-08 at .]

Repetitive Jaw Movement, Reverend John Mphatso, River Jones Music?

Actually I think our pond-hopping friend might mean Restorative Justice Ministry.

Really Just More.... (of the same)

I thought I had abandoned that post. A MFR in a COA distracted me! But I was going to concur with the astute assessment about the SCOTUS rulings of late. Just compare the analysis in the 2nd Amendment case (D.C. v. Heller) with that in the death for child rape case (Kennedy v. Louisiana). No doubt the analyses were designed to reach the results, not the other way around. The cases seemed incredibly transparent.


JAS

Looks like the Department of Justice has weighed in.

SCOTUSblog

I think we can all agree the focus is on one judge changing his vote. What odds would you get in Vegas? Anyone want to take a stab at writing the opinion on rehearing? Here is one option:

"You know what, you were right."

"You know what, you were right."

Sounds way too short for a SC decision.

How about "Oh, that's what consensus means."

The Weekly Standard has an interesting article on this issue. I've got to say, I'm just tickled that this story seems to have legs, however small they may be.

Here's the link:

The Link

You know, in their decisions on whether limits on partial-term abortion is constitutional, they say that the State's argument that it is a "rarely-used" procedure is without merit and irrelevant. Because of the rare situation in which it is necessary to save a mother's life, it should not be prohibited completely (the law must provide an exception for medical necessity).

My thought is, just because the death penalty is a "rarely used" or recognized law for child molesters, that is an argument without merit and irrelevant to its constitutionality in the rare situation in which it would be a totally appropriate sanction to save a child's life. Just sayin'.

Describes the mood or content of the topic posted 05-29-07 Click Here to See the Profile for JB Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post I didn't say it would necessarily be successful, but the poor reasoning and loose langauge will result in a nightmare of litigation by creative defense attorneys. How the majority could miss the obvious consequences of their decision is a mystery......

Pathogen
Addiction Recovery Texas

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gretchen:
You know, in their decisions on whether limits on partial-term abortion is constitutional, they say that the State's argument that it is a "rarely-used" procedure is without merit and irrelevant. Because of the rare situation in which it is necessary to save a mother's life, it should not be prohibited completely (the law must provide an exception for medical necessity).

My thought is, just because the death penalty is a "rarely used" or recognized law for child molesters, that is an argument without merit and irrelevant to its constitutionality in the rare situation in which it would be a totally appropriate sanction to save a child's life. Just sayin'.

---

Let's not try to link the abortion issue to the death penalty, now. That could really get political. ;

Interesting point, though.

Tribe has come out against Kennedy v. Louisiana

He stole my editorial.

But he added a completely tangential and non-responsive political pitch.

Still, good insight.

[This message was edited by R.J. MacReady on 07-31-08 at .]

I want to share a quote from that linked editorial:

quote:

---

Many who applauded the court's original ruling did so not on the basis of the court's (now evidently faulty) trend-spotting rationale but, rather, on the premise that any way of containing the spread of capital punishment -- such as by confining its use to murderers and traitors -- is a good idea.

---

I think this statement 99.99% correct.
The othe .01% are people who say things like:
"Don't forget all the good things about violent child rape."

Interesting development.

Yeah, I didn't have a gratuitous shout out for Obama in my editorial. Shoulda make the connection.

quote:

---

Let's not try to link the abortion issue to the death penalty, now. That could really get political.

---

I wasn't trying to get political, except to the extent that the justices will talk out of both sides of their mouths when the issue suits them. The statements about the abortion issue were out of a case (not my opinions). They use one argument in favor of their position in one situation, then turn around and say the argument isn't meritorious when it's used in a situation of which they don't approve.

I agree with you. That's an excellent point.