"The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child"

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Don't you see, Mike? This thread is for Tex to state how stupid other people are for the decisions they have made. At no point in time does Tex feel it is appropriate to take a position on what the right way of making the decision would be, and if he ever does, at no point should his statement actually be construed as an argument supported by Tex.

Tired act.

Yeah, I don't click on his links to himself.
=================

"It's totally subjective!!!"

Well how you would you do it?

"I would be subjective, but only my opinion is right!!!"

[Tex]

If we could return to the issue here ...

Upon reflection, this revelation really illustrates my objection to this ruling. Here we have Congress--the body of the people, mind you, and as representative of national mood as any vehicle possibly could be--expressing their will on this issue in the form of the UMCJ, and the Court completely ignored it! And not only the majority, but the minority missed it as well.

It is near impossible for a single judge--or 5 or 9 of them--to properly and fairly gauge "national consensus" nor "evolving standards of decency" on a matter like this. What this amounts to nothing more than these justices inserting their personal opinions into the law.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

If we could return to the issue here ...

Upon reflection, this revelation really illustrates my objection to this ruling. Here we have Congress--the body of the people, mind you, and as representative of national mood as any vehicle possibly could be--expressing their will on this issue in the form of the UMCJ, and the Court completely ignored it! And not only the majority, but the minority missed it as well.

It is near impossible for a single judge--or 5 or 9 of them--to properly and fairly gauge "national consensus" nor "evolving standards of decency" on a matter like this. What this amounts to nothing more than these justices inserting their personal opinions into the law.

Shouldn't you be blaming the lawyers who should have brought it up?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Shouldn't you be blaming the lawyers who should have brought it up?

Sure, they bear their share, though they didn't issue the ruling nor sign their name to the logic.

I'm speaking of the system as a whole. Expecting the court to be arbiters of morality is a bad idea.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

If we could return to the issue here ...

Upon reflection, this revelation really illustrates my objection to this ruling. Here we have Congress--the body of the people, mind you, and as representative of national mood as any vehicle possibly could be--expressing their will on this issue in the form of the UMCJ, and the Court completely ignored it! And not only the majority, but the minority missed it as well.

It is near impossible for a single judge--or 5 or 9 of them--to properly and fairly gauge "national consensus" nor "evolving standards of decency" on a matter like this. What this amounts to nothing more than these justices inserting their personal opinions into the law.

You continue to complain about the justices deciding what "cruel and unusual" means without giving any sort of fixed meaning to either term. Who should interpret the meaning if not the justices? That is kind of how the system is designed to work.

The Congress COULD have said that the death penalty is available for federal offenses involving rape. They didn't. Instead, they focused solely on the UMCJ (which has wildly different rules and penalties than civilian courts in many areas).

You want to talk around the fact that 6 states make rape a crime punishable by death. 44 do not. 6-44. Even Duke wouldn't be proud of that record.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You continue to complain about the justices deciding what "cruel and unusual" means without giving any sort of fixed meaning to either term. Who should interpret the meaning if not the justices? That is kind of how the system is designed to work.

That they should interpret the Constitution is not in dispute. It's how they did so that is.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The Congress COULD have said that the death penalty is available for federal offenses involving rape. They didn't. Instead, they focused solely on the UMCJ (which has wildly different rules and penalties than civilian courts in many areas).

Just because the UMCJ is not the same as civilian court doesn't mean it doesn't deserve consideration when determining "national consensus." That they (apparently accidentally) didn't illustrates my point: that they are inherently unable to do so.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You want to talk around the fact that 6 states make rape a crime punishable by death. 44 do not. 6-44. Even Duke wouldn't be proud of that record.

You're arguing against a point I'm not making. I don't claim that 6 makes a majority. Rather, I claim that the 6 states who had these laws undermines the majority's argument about consensus. Their very existence, and the fact that the number was growing, indicates that we do NOT have consensus (definition: "general agreement" or "unanimity").

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

Would executing rapists encourage rapists not to rape at all?

probably not

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

That they should interpret the Constitution is not in dispute. It's how they did so that is.

Still, no information from Tex as to how they SHOULD interpret the Constitution (hint: it probably must be interpreted as Tex would interpret it).

Just because the UMCJ is not the same as civilian court doesn't mean it doesn't deserve consideration when determining "national consensus." That they (apparently accidentally) didn't illustrates my point: that they are inherently unable to do so.

Is it a national consensus that evidentiary standards should be the same in civilian courts as they are in military courts? Congress could have enacted a law that would apply to civilian and military courts for federal offenses. They didn't. While rape isn't typically a federal offense, they didn't see fit to make it subject to the death penalty where it is. Even if they had, I don't see any "national consensus" being reached when 44 states disagree with them.

You're arguing against a point I'm not making.

You leave me with no choice. You aren't making any points and seem to go out of your way to make that clear. Same tired act.

I don't claim that 6 makes a majority. Rather, I claim that the 6 states who had these laws undermines the majority's argument about consensus. Their very existence, no matter the number, indicates that we do NOT have consensus (definition: "general agreement" or "unanimity").

Since when does "consensus" mean "unanimity?" What a bizarre English language world you live in. Do you use any words correctly?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus

Consensus means "majority of opinion." See the first definition. "General agreement" means just that- people "in general" agree. It doesn't mean "everyone agrees."

I'm not sure what you are even trying to get at with your silly "unanimity" requirement anyways. There certainly isn't a "unanimous consensus" (it is funny to even type that phrase) that rape SHOULD be punishable by death. Are you suggesting that absence unanimous agreement of the states, the Supreme Court shouldn't have the power to hear a case which overturns the will of a state? You do realize, of course, that if there were a "unanimous consensus," the Court wouldn't get the case at all (because everyone would agree what the result should be)? When does the Court have the right to review "cruel and unusual" and what are they allowed to use in deciding what it means? Please enlighten us, Tex.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by BlueK

probably not

Get ready to go through several posts with Tex where he now tries to convince you that he was agreeing it wouldn't have any effect on the occurrence of rape.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Still, no information from Tex as to how they SHOULD interpret the Constitution (hint: it probably must be interpreted as Tex would interpret it).

Not interested in discussing that at the moment ... more interested in discussing the actual decision.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Is it a national consensus that evidentiary standards should be the same in civilian courts as they are in military courts? Congress could have enacted a law that would apply to civilian and military courts for federal offenses. They didn't. While rape isn't typically a federal offense, they didn't see fit to make it subject to the death penalty where it is. Even if they had, I don't see any "national consensus" being reached when 44 states disagree with them.

Evidentiary standards are irrelevant. The justices are trying to determine "national consensus," thus what Congress has had to say on it--no matter the jurisdiction--is important.

Saying 44 states disagree is a little inaccurate, unless you know of specific measures that have either failed or been overturned/repealed. It's more accurate to say 44 states are silent on the matter.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You leave me with no choice. You aren't making any points and seem to go out of your way to make that clear. Same tired act.

If you choose to attack me on issues about which I have not opined, don't get all hot-and-bothered when I remind you I have not opined on them (and/or decline to do so). It's not my fault you can't control yourself.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Since when does "consensus" mean "unanimity?" What a bizarre English language world you live in. Do you use any words correctly?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus

Consensus means "majority of opinion." See the first definition. "General agreement" means just that- people "in general" agree. It doesn't mean "everyone agrees."

I'm not sure what you are even trying to get at with your silly "unanimity" requirement anyways. There certainly isn't a "unanimous consensus" (it is funny to even type that phrase) that rape SHOULD be punishable by death. Are you suggesting that absence unanimous agreement of the states, the Supreme Court shouldn't have the power to hear a case which overturns the will of a state? You do realize, of course, that if there were a "unanimous consensus," the Court wouldn't get the case at all (because everyone would agree what the result should be)? When does the Court have the right to review "cruel and unusual" and what are they allowed to use in deciding what it means? Please enlighten us, Tex.

My point is, I don't think the court should be in the business of gauging consensus at all. They should rule on the law, not on what (in their judgment) is the most popular.

Of course, if you really want to go that route, it would not be hard to review decisions the court made that went against "national consensus."