SCOTUS Upholds Present Method of Lethal Injection as not "Cruel and Unusual."

[jcd11235 0]

I suppose I can live with that clarification, since I went on to call it editorializing.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I suppose I can live with that clarification, since I went on to call it editorializing.

I didn't connect that. You're right.

later

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

There is a political party that loves having judges "fix" what THEY see as wrong. This could however go both ways if things keep going they way they are.

What a load of crap.

The correct statement is "There are two political parties that loves having judges "fix" what THEY see as wrong."
Judicial activism is bad only when it gores YOUR sacred cow. If it gores the other guy's sacred cow the response is "The judges/courts got it right this time."
It works both ways and you know it. Be honest enough to admit it.

The reactionary content of my posts in this forum are DIRECTLY the result of the rescumlicans complete and utter disregard for the rule of law and the Constitution, as shown since 1980.

I don't much care for ANY of the current crop of politicians. I used to be conservative to the core. Then I figured out that the supposedly religious right wing whackos have perverted the system in the most foul and disgusting way. The sheeple are content to let it happen. shrub didn't win the election in 2000 and he didn't win in 2004. The evidence against the rescums WRT to voter fraud, vote caging, etc, etc is overwhelming. The right wing controlled media spin machine keeps feeding the people bullshit. They eagerly lap it up as though it is manna from heaven. This country is spinning down the toilet at high speed. And the righties are very proud of it. Scumbags, through and through.

I stand by my assessment of Stevens. He is not worthy of respect for sticking by precedent instead of what he really thinks. A chickenshit reaction.

[Erroll 80]

Slightly off topic, but you guys are discussing the US Supreme Court and its judges:-

Quote

The evidence against the republicans WRT to voter fraud, vote caging, etc, etc is overwhelming.

I see this claim (in various forms) quite regularly in this forum. Now, I am not an American, nor am I a lawyer, but I am also not completely ignorant or stupid. If there were such overwhelming evidence wouldn't one have seen some legal action or intervention of some kind before the Supreme Court?

[base_nz 0]

Quote

Quote

I've been thinking about this, and I strongly disagree with you. You have the typical lawyers view of things as a kind of game played out by gladiators in the arena.

And how is that different from your behavior on gun control debate? You act very much like Stevens- claiming to hold one belief yet acting consistently in the opposite viewpoint.

Or do you believe that an internet forum is fine for trolling, but a Supreme Court Justice should not play that way?

The question wasn't about the good or bad of the death penalty. The question before him only addressed the question of the 8th amendment versus lethal injection. Personally, I found the question ridiculous - it's hard to imagine a less cruel method of execution given the past choices of firing squad (Utah), gas chambers, guillotines,...

Chinese had it right... One at the base of the head...

.....And you thought Kiwis couldn't fly!!!!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I see this claim (in various forms) quite regularly in this forum. Now, I am not an American, nor am I a lawyer, but I am also not completely ignorant or stupid. If there were such overwhelming evidence wouldn't one have seen some legal action or intervention of some kind before the Supreme Court?

Yes, you would. But don't inject reality into their party.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Slightly off topic, but you guys are discussing the US Supreme Court and its judges:-

Quote

The evidence against the republicans WRT to voter fraud, vote caging, etc, etc is overwhelming.

I see this claim (in various forms) quite regularly in this forum. Now, I am not an American, nor am I a lawyer, but I am also not completely ignorant or stupid. If there were such overwhelming evidence wouldn't one have seen some legal action or intervention of some kind before the Supreme Court?

In a few cases they are part of the problem

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

There is a political party that loves having judges "fix" what THEY see as wrong. This could however go both ways if things keep going they way they are.

What a load of crap.

The correct statement is "There are two political parties that loves having judges "fix" what THEY see as wrong."
Judicial activism is bad only when it gores YOUR sacred cow. If it gores the other guy's sacred cow the response is "The judges/courts got it right this time."
It works both ways and you know it. Be honest enough to admit it.

The reactionary content of my posts in this forum are DIRECTLY the result of the rescumlicans complete and utter disregard for the rule of law and the Constitution, as shown since 1980.

I don't much care for ANY of the current crop of politicians. I used to be conservative to the core. Then I figured out that the supposedly religious right wing whackos have perverted the system in the most foul and disgusting way. The sheeple are content to let it happen. shrub didn't win the election in 2000 and he didn't win in 2004. The evidence against the rescums WRT to voter fraud, vote caging, etc, etc is overwhelming. The right wing controlled media spin machine keeps feeding the people bullshit. They eagerly lap it up as though it is manna from heaven. This country is spinning down the toilet at high speed. And the righties are very proud of it. Scumbags, through and through.

I stand by my assessment of Stevens. He is not worthy of respect for sticking by precedent instead of what he really thinks. A chickenshit reaction.

As I posted, it does happen both ways but one side has many more example.

but here you prove you WANT activist judges (when it suits you) What he really thinks is not to be considered if you are a judge. Whether or not you agree with law and ruling from your political position makes you and activist.

What a funny post, you advocate for that you are slamming.

By the way, are getting post training from Amazon?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The correct statement is "There are two political parties that loves having judges "fix" what THEY see as wrong."
Judicial activism is bad only when it gores YOUR sacred cow. If it gores the other guy's sacred cow the response is "The judges/courts got it right this time."
It works both ways and you know it. Be honest enough to admit it.

I'm heartened that you read my response to you and get it. Now, what to do about it?

Respect process and utilize process. As you said, none of us likes the idea that a judge or judges can change the substantive protections because they feel like it is something that should be done.

Quote

I stand by my assessment of Stevens. He is not worthy of respect for sticking by precedent instead of what he really thinks. A chickenshit reaction.

Ooops. I was wrong in my assessment. Not only do you not have a problem with activism when used, you have a problem with it when it is NOT used.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

The correct statement is "There are two political parties that loves having judges "fix" what THEY see as wrong."
Judicial activism is bad only when it gores YOUR sacred cow. If it gores the other guy's sacred cow the response is "The judges/courts got it right this time."
It works both ways and you know it. Be honest enough to admit it.

I'm heartened that you read my response to you and get it. Now, what to do about it?

Respect process and utilize process. As you said, none of us likes the idea that a judge or judges can change the substantive protections because they feel like it is something that should be done.

Quote

I stand by my assessment of Stevens. He is not worthy of respect for sticking by precedent instead of what he really thinks. A chickenshit reaction.

Ooops. I was wrong in my assessment. Not only do you not have a problem with activism when used, you have a problem with it when it is NOT used.

Is it, or is it not, the role of the SCOTUS to determine what the Constitution really means in the actual application of laws?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Is it, or is it not, the role of the SCOTUS to determine what the Constitution really means in the actual application of laws?

It has long been held that the role of the SCOTUS has been to interpret the Constitution and apply its protections to laws passed by the governments of the states and the US.

But, that was a different time. Questions must be answered with regard to the status of the times and the modern understanding of what society believes. While the question you asked would certainly be answered in the affirmative, present issues require a different analysis.

Thus, while I understand that you ask, "determine what the Constitution really means," I conclude that the question you ask is archaic and useless in today's world, and must be interpretd with regard to the modern movement of "self esteem." Self esteem can be found in the penumbra of rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. And therefore, what I think will give me the best esteem is how I will frame your question and my answer.

So the question you asked must be viewed in light of my self-esteem. And "actual application to the laws," while it has always meant whether it violates the Constitution, shall now be read to mean, "Does the Constitution specifically address this law?"

Thus, what you are asking, in the modern sense, is, "Is there any constitutional doctrine that prevents me from reading it any fucking way I want?" The answer is no.

So while the Consititution specifically mentions that soldiers cannot be required to be quartered in private homes, I will read that "soldiers" mean personell of the US Army and "quartered" to mean $25 cented.

Make sense, professor? It shouldn't.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Is it, or is it not, the role of the SCOTUS to determine what the Constitution really means in the actual application of laws?

It has long been held that the role of the SCOTUS has been to interpret the Constitution and apply its protections to laws passed by the governments of the states and the US.

But, that was a different time. Questions must be answered with regard to the status of the times and the modern understanding of what society believes. While the question you asked would certainly be answered in the affirmative, present issues require a different analysis.

Thus, while I understand that you ask, "determine what the Constitution really means," I conclude that the question you ask is archaic and useless in today's world, and must be interpretd with regard to the modern movement of "self esteem." Self esteem can be found in the penumbra of rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. And therefore, what I think will give me the best esteem is how I will frame your question and my answer.

So the question you asked must be viewed in light of my self-esteem. And "actual application to the laws," while it has always meant whether it violates the Constitution, shall now be read to mean, "Does the Constitution specifically address this law?"

Thus, what you are asking, in the modern sense, is, "Is there any constitutional doctrine that prevents me from reading it any fucking way I want?" The answer is no.

So while the Consititution specifically mentions that soldiers cannot be required to be quartered in private homes, I will read that "soldiers" mean personell of the US Army and "quartered" to mean $25 cented.

Make sense, professor? It shouldn't.

No, it didn't, and neither does your position on this issue.

If it were cut and dried what the Constitution means, we wouldn't need a SCOTUS at all.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

If it were cut and dried what the Constitution means, we wouldn't need a SCOTUS at all.

It's why we've got nine members.

But, Professor, let's say that for two hundred years, it has been said that "x means x." But now some people don't like it that "x means x." They'd rather have "y."

Instead of changing the Constitution to say that "x shall now be y" they get some judges who say, "x has always meant 'x' but I don't think that's fair today. Therefore, let 'x' mean 'y' because, well, I think it's a better way of doing things."

27 times have the people looked at the Constitution and said, "We need to change this" and met with success. There are 27 Amendments.

Like thr 13th, which ended slavery. Slavery was allowed under the Constitution. Instead of judges saying, "That's fucked up" and changing it (which back then judges knew they couldn't do) we amended it.

The 14th Amendment applied the Constitutional protections to the states.

The 16th Amendment? Passed as a result of a SCOTUS decision that greatly limited the ability of Congress to levy an income tax. Yes, it was designed to overrule SCOTUS precedent.

The 18th Amendment? Prohibited alcohol. Then the Americans said, "That was dumb" and passed the 21st Amendment to repeal it!
The 25th Amendment? Meant to clarify ambiguity in the original Constitution.

So, when it has ALWAYS been construed to mean "x" and the polity wants "y" then the Constitution can be amended. Sure, amending is difficult. It is SUPPOSED to be difficult.

Let us not leave changing the rules to nine people who are unelected.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

If it were cut and dried what the Constitution means, we wouldn't need a SCOTUS at all.

It's why we've got nine members.

But, Professor, let's say that for two hundred years, it has been said that "x means x." But now some people don't like it that "x means x." They'd rather have "y."

Instead of changing the Constitution to say that "x shall now be y" they get some judges who say, "x has always meant 'x' but I don't think that's fair today. Therefore, let 'x' mean 'y' because, well, I think it's a better way of doing things."

27 times have the people looked at the Constitution and said, "We need to change this" and met with success. There are 27 Amendments.

Like thr 13th, which ended slavery. Slavery was allowed under the Constitution. Instead of judges saying, "That's fucked up" and changing it (which back then judges knew they couldn't do) we amended it.

The 14th Amendment applied the Constitutional protections to the states.

The 16th Amendment? Passed as a result of a SCOTUS decision that greatly limited the ability of Congress to levy an income tax. Yes, it was designed to overrule SCOTUS precedent.

The 18th Amendment? Prohibited alcohol. Then the Americans said, "That was dumb" and passed the 21st Amendment to repeal it!
The 25th Amendment? Meant to clarify ambiguity in the original Constitution.

So, when it has ALWAYS been construed to mean "x" and the polity wants "y" then the Constitution can be amended. Sure, amending is difficult. It is SUPPOSED to be difficult.

Let us not leave changing the rules to nine people who are unelected.

and here you have clearly laid out why so many do not like this process. why? because many do not "trust" the voters because they could, be "wrong"

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,146]

Changing the Constitution is NOT the same as interpreting **exactly** what it means. THAT is the job of supreme court justices. And I don't see why a majority decision 25/50/150 years ago affects the justices' interpretation now.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I don't see why a majority decision 25/50/150 years ago affects the justices' interpretation now.

a very apparent statement

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

and here you have clearly laid out why so many do not like this process. why? because many do not "trust" the voters because they could, be "wrong"

The court is there as a check on the voters. In a pure democracy, there is no need for courts or law. The will of the people determines what happens.

Well, the will of the people can be fucked up. And in that case, it is the province of the Courts to say, "The Constitution says that you can't do that."

I appreciate when the courts do that. It's why federal judges have lifetime appointments - so that they can enforce the Constitution without fear of reelection.

Politicans are elected. They push the boundaries of the Constitution. The courts are that check.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

and here you have clearly laid out why so many do not like this process. why? because many do not "trust" the voters because they could, be "wrong"

The court is there as a check on the voters. In a pure democracy, there is no need for courts or law. The will of the people determines what happens.

Well, the will of the people can be fucked up. And in that case, it is the province of the Courts to say, "The Constitution says that you can't do that."

I appreciate when the courts do that. It's why federal judges have lifetime appointments - so that they can enforce the Constitution without fear of reelection.

Politicans are elected. They push the boundaries of the Constitution. The courts are that check.

Fair enough but my comment to you was in the context of making an amendment. There are those that do not trust the voters because there is a chance the result will not be what they hoped for. Too much risk when they "know" thier position is the only correct one.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I don't see why a majority decision 25/50/150 years ago affects the justices' interpretation now.

a very apparent statement

hense, the "living breathing document" discussions

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And I don't see why a majority decision 25/50/150 years ago affects the justices' interpretation now.

What about yesterday? Last week? Last year?
5 years ago? Let's give a real life example of re-interpretation...

Six years ago you wrote about the 45 degree rule for exit separation http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=100050#100050:

"just do the physics, f=ma, for, say, a spaceball (which won't do the strangest things) and you'll see the angle doesn't reach 45 degrees."

"It was interpreted back then as you meaning that the 45 degree angle coul not be reached.

However, considering the consituing issues with exit separation, it is time to reexamine and new interpretation of that statement. Unfortunately, with the inability of people to keep standard timing requirements, resulting in poor exit separation, we must re-examine these rules. Considering the techiniques and perceptions of the community those years ago, and the problems that failure to adhere to the rule have caused, we believe that the prior interpretations of the statement should be re-examined.

"[insert elegant prose]

"Thus, all things considered, we come to the conclusion that the original intent of the writer was not to say that the 45 degree angle could not be achieved.

"Rather, the intent was limited solely to that of a spaceball, as indicated by the clause , "for, say, a spaceball." Kallend intended to limit his statement solely to the spaceball, and that his rule would not apply in other contexts.

"We hold that professor kallend was listing the spaceball as an exception to the rule that there should be roughly 45 degrees of separation, that that Kallend, indeed, intended to be a proponent of the 45 degree rule for exit separation.

Thus, we reverse ourselves, and now hold that under the Kallend Doctrine, the 45-Degree Rule for exit separation shall be employed as a trustworthy method."


Dissent: "What the fuck? That's not what Kallend said, and it's never been stated or even intimated that it's what he meant..."

Differeing interpretations, Doctor? Note the sly Second Amendment angle I put into it?

Hey - the statement is six year sold. And plenty of people LIKE the 45 Degree rule. When standards fail, caprice is an attractive option.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

We concur - AND, certainly in today's world - with the advent of audible alarms, aad's, and digital altimeters, that freefall drift is really just a moot concept and we should all exit in based on fall rate - fastest to slowest - to maximize vertical separation on opening.

Plus the convenience of having everyone open in the same vertical column but already stacked in landing order is readily apparent - and clearly supported by Dr Kallend's modeling as further evidence of his true intent.

I agree, the Kallend Doctirne is solid.





Caprice IS fun.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Strong concurrence there, learned scholar!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Hmm. I expected some agreement from kallend on the reinterpretation. But no agreement. What's up?

I wonder, could it be that intepreting words in an arbitrary and capricious manner - if for nothing else than because "I know better than you what is good for you and for this country" - is a mighty messed up thing?

Sure, you may get what you want out of it with post-hoc reasoning of the type that you don't see out of cats like Scalia. But what you lose is respect for words.

Words have meaning. That meaning is there for all to see. As well as anybody, I know how jacked up it is to twist words.

And any dude out there who has ever had a girlfirend or a wife knows how messed up it is when "meanings" and found that just ain't there.

"you look great, honey!"
"What does THAT mean?"
"It means you look great?"
"Oh, are you saying that I don't usually look great?"

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Hmm. I expected some agreement from kallend on the reinterpretation. But no agreement. What's up?

I wonder, could it be that intepreting words in an arbitrary and capricious manner - if for nothing else than because "I know better than you what is good for you and for this country" - is a mighty messed up thing?

Sure, you may get what you want out of it with post-hoc reasoning of the type that you don't see out of cats like Scalia. But what you lose is respect for words.

Words have meaning. That meaning is there for all to see. As well as anybody, I know how jacked up it is to twist words.

And any dude out there who has ever had a girlfirend or a wife knows how messed up it is when "meanings" and found that just ain't there.

"you look great, honey!"
"What does THAT mean?"
"It means you look great?"
"Oh, are you saying that I don't usually look great?"

Man made laws and laws of nature are not comparable. Your example is just silly. Not even Scalia can declare gravity unconsitiutional.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

That's not what I'm saying. What I am doing is spinning your words to make it sound like you are advocating something you aren't. Or, in the alternative, changing the understanding of what it is you wrote.

But, there IS some comparison, john. The law what it says, right? The only thing a law is - words. That is all - words. And I worte about how your words could be interpreted NOT to violate the laws of nature but to show how you advocate ignoring the laws of nature.

True, the laws of nature do not change. The words of the 8th Amendment haven't changed since they were put in there in 1791. And yet, you are essentially arguing that the words should be ignored.

My wife is hotter than your wife.