Alito Opposes Mo. Execution

There should have been no delay for any reason is what I am saying.

 

CMG,

I said on this board that Catholics in the majority on the court might stick us with Catholic issues such as no death penalty.

Like pro-death penalty Scalia?

 

But, CMG, will you also let us know if Alito sides with the death penalty?

 

So Alito is a better Catholic than Scalia. The decision the other day showed that there are only 3 conservative votes on the court. Alito's call for a concession to this felon is baseless.

What is more amusing is Ken's new-found support for Bush, whom Ken recently accused of acting illegally by monitoring conversations among terrorist operatives. It was only a couple of weeks ago that Ken was saying that we had an imperial tyrant, etc, etc, etc. Now Ken has done another one of his famous flip flops.

 

But, CMG, will you also let us know if Alito sides with the death penalty? </font>[/QUOTE]OK, FTR, explain to me why we should endure another delay while we investigate lethal injections. Does anyone think that there is a painless way to die? This business of felons getting delay after delay so that it takes 20 years to execute one of them is a mockery of justice.

 

If you will notice, cmg, I have not let Emperor, I mean, President Bush off of the hook on Snoopgate. I am still firmly opposed to extending Bush's Patriot Act as well.

I have supported the Alito nomination and the Roberts nomination from the start. You cannot find otherwise.

I don't feel, cmg, that I have to support a politician 100% of the time nor oppose a politician 100% of the time. As a thinking individual I will agree with a politician some of the time and disagree with a politician some of the time.

 

You know, Bush doublecrossed the Indiana Republican Party. He forced out a Christian candidate to put in his buddy Mitch Daniels, an Eli Lilly CFO, as governor of Indiana. Then Daniels moved to the left once he had the nomination. Currently Daniels and Bush have forced Indiana into the Eastern Time Zone even though Indiana lies in the Central Time Zone according to the Greenwich Mean Time system established in 1884 according to scientific observation. Daniels also wants to sell the Indiana Toll Road to a consortium of Spaniards and Australians, giving them huge profits at our expense so that Daniels can spend the price of the sale during his administration. I could go on, but Congress Mike Pence of Muncie, Indiana, said it best when he said that Bush is not a conservative.

 

I totally agree, cmg.

See, I can even agree with you, cmg...sometimes.

 

CMG,

What is more amusing is Ken's new-found support for Bush

Ken has done another one of his famous flip flops.

I agree that Ken seems to have flip flopped on Bush in general but I don't think this is an example. He hasn't gone back, that I have seen, on his opposition to the wiretaps as he answered for himself on that issue and the PATRIOT Act, but simply supports Bush in this instance, . CMG, I don't know any of us (even those of us (myself included?) he referred to recently as Bush bootlickers) who support Bush on everything. Neither does Ken now oppose him on everything.

OK, FTR, explain to me why we should endure another delay while we investigate lethal injections.

I honestly don't know what the reason for the stay was. Does anyone? I read on another discussion board that Thomas recently granted a short stay on a death penalty case, then lifted it after a review. It was Alito's first day on the court, Missouri is one of the states he has been assigned for these issues. It was a stay so that they could review it, it was not the overturning of a death penalty.

Bush is not a conservative.

I absolutely agree with you.

But I repeat the question: will you let us know if Alito votes for the death penalty?

 

Here is what I remember of an explaination in this case.

Alito has long disliked close votes on these kind of cases, and has stated that he will vote for the defendant if the outcome is not changed by his vote. The net result is a larger majority find, rather than close votes that leave everyone second guessing.

It went something like that.

 

As someone who is opposed to the death penalty, I was shocked to hear that he sided with the majority on this one.

But as several have pointed out, this is only one case. I wouldn't judge him (pardon the pun) just yet.

Regards to all,
BiR

 

BiR,

I don't think it's even a matter of this being one case, but that he had been on the job one day when confronted with this case and needed time to study it. He may very well decide to lift the stay later, as Thomas has done in the past.

To avoid a pun, I won't request a pardon.

Take care, safety and Godspeed in your travels.

 

But, CMG, will you also let us know if Alito sides with the death penalty? </font>[/QUOTE]That is not in my job description at this time. I am disappointed in the court that Bush has given us because I think that Catholicism is nuts. We have to move away from the idea that law is the command of the king (abortion is legal because Thurgood Marshall and others said that it is legal) and move to a law based upon Protestant jurisprudence (abortion is murder because God said that thou shalt not murder).

 

Then, can we let you know?

 

You may be right here.

&lt;rim shot sound effect&gt;

Thank you for that. I am here in Idaho for a few days on business, then it's off to my hometown of Tampa for a few days of offshore fishing. I am REALLY looking forward to that!

Hope you are well, did you get my PM?

BiR

 

Then, can we let you know? </font>[/QUOTE]I'm counting on it!

 

BiR,

Hope you are well, did you get my PM?

Had another tough day today but have learned what a truly marvel-ous thing is the love of a good woman. Yes, got your PM, thanks, and thanks again for the prayers.


CMG,

I'm counting on it!

Will be here, my friend.

 

CMG, the problem here is that you are wanting judges to do exactly what we complain about... legislate from the bench. Marshall said that abortion is legal, and it is based on the long standing principle of judicial review that we were given in Marbury v. Madison. Wanting to move to a law based on Protestant jurisprudence is illegal in light of Amendment I.

This is not the way to win the battle. Much of America is terrified by the thought of a "theocracy" and we don't need to justify their fear. Rather, Roe should be over turned based on science. The science that was used in the case is no longer valid. Many of the facts used in the case have been proven to be false. Roe can be changed in a first step toward a logical reform of the judiciary. A step that brings us back to legislators legislating without help from the judiciary. This will allow us to elect legislators that will pass laws that are consistent with our moral views.