Discussion:
Tiny Insignificant Minority Party Composed Only Of White Males And Old White Grannies Still Making Democretin Heads Explode - Watch Them Explode In Response To This Posting - HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
(too old to reply)
Harry Hope
2009-08-18 19:40:41 UTC
Permalink
Aug 17th, 2009

Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing the
innocent.

By Ian Millhiser

Almost two decades ago, Troy Anthony Davis was convicted of murder and
sentenced to die.

Since then, seven of the witnesses against him have recanted their
testimony,
http://www.ajc.com/news/us-supreme-court-orders-new-hearing-for-troy-davis-117260.html
and some have even implicated Sylvester “Redd” Coles, a witness who
testified that Davis was the shooter.

In light of the very real evidence that Davis could be innocent of the
crime that placed him on death row, the Supreme Court today invoked a
rarely used procedure giving Davis an opportunity to challenge his
conviction.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/hearing-on-innocence-claim-ordered/

Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, however, Justice Antonin
Scalia criticized his colleagues for thinking that mere innocence is
grounds to overturn a conviction:
http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-1443Scalia.pdf


This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution
of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is
later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.
Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question
unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based
on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.


So in Justice Scalia’s world, the law has no problem with sending an
innocent man to die.

One wonders why we even bother to have a Constitution.

_____________________________________________________

Wanna put the straitjacket under or over the animal's robe?

Harry
Obama-Gestapo Care Is Dead!
2009-08-18 19:45:54 UTC
Permalink
Gallup Poll - In 47 States Conservatives Outnumber LibTards
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122333/Political-Ideology-Conservative-Label-Prevails-South.aspx
Tiny Insignificant Minority Party Composed Only Of White Males And Old
White Grannies Still Making Democretin Heads Explode - Watch Them
Explode In Response To This Posting - HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Tracey12
2009-08-18 19:52:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Hope
Aug 17th, 2009
Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing the
innocent.
By Ian Millhiser
Almost two decades ago, Troy Anthony Davis was convicted of murder and
sentenced to die.
Since then, seven of the witnesses against him have recanted their
testimony,http://www.ajc.com/news/us-supreme-court-orders-new-hearing-for-troy-...
and some have even implicated Sylvester “Redd” Coles, a witness who
testified that Davis was the shooter.
In light of the very real evidence that Davis could be innocent of the
crime that placed him on death row, the Supreme Court today invoked a
rarely used procedure giving Davis an opportunity to challenge his
conviction.http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/hearing-on-innocence-claim-ordered/
Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, however, Justice Antonin
Scalia criticized his colleagues for thinking that mere innocence is
grounds to overturn a conviction:http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-1443Scalia.pdf
This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution
of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is
later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.
Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question
unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based
on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.
So in Justice Scalia’s world, the law has no problem with sending an
innocent man to die.  
One wonders why we even bother to have a Constitution.
_____________________________________________________
Wanna put the straitjacket under or over the animal's robe?
Harry
The Constitution does not discuss the morality of the state killing
the innocent because of the outcome of a trial.that was conducted
within the confines of the law. It takes only common sense to
conclude that killing the innocent is insane when there is clear
evidence that supports the fact that the convicted is innocent.

Why would you want to punish the wrong person?
c***@webtv.net
2009-08-21 21:02:37 UTC
Permalink
these people often "recant" their stories when gang members threaten to
murder their families if they don't "recant"...


" DISOBEY "
freeisbest
2009-08-18 20:07:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Hope
Aug 17th, 2009
Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing
the innocent.
By Ian Millhiser
Almost two decades ago, Troy Anthony Davis was convicted of murder and
sentenced to die.
Since then, seven of the witnesses against him have recanted their
testimony,
http://www.ajc.com/news/us-supreme-court-orders-new-hearing-for-troy-...
Post by Harry Hope
and some have even implicated Sylvester “Redd” Coles, a witness who
testified that Davis was the shooter.
In light of the very real evidence that Davis could be innocent of the
crime that placed him on death row, the Supreme Court today invoked a
rarely used procedure giving Davis an opportunity to challenge his
conviction.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/hearing-on-innocence-claim-ordered/
Post by Harry Hope
Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, however, Justice
Antonin Scalia criticized his colleagues for thinking that mere
http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-1443Scalia.pdf
This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution
of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is
later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.
Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question
unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based
on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.
So in Justice Scalia’s world, the law has no problem with
sending an innocent man to die.  
One wonders why we even bother to have a Constitution.
_________________________________________________
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
Scalia and Thomas bring closer the day when every member of the
judiciary will have to prove that s/he is mentally healthy and
intelligent enough to place on the Supreme Court.
No, theat proof won't be a "test" they can cram for.
Post by Harry Hope
Wanna put the straitjacket under or over the animal's robe?
Harry
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
2009-08-18 20:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by freeisbest
Post by Harry Hope
_________________________________________________
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
Post by freeisbest
Scalia and Thomas bring closer the day when every member of the
judiciary will have to prove that s/he is mentally healthy and
intelligent enough to place on the Supreme Court.
No, theat proof won't be a "test" they can cram for.
So he's insane because you disagree with his opinion, which you
never read?
Sid9
2009-08-18 22:01:53 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
Post by Harry Hope
_________________________________________________
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it
is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to
judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they
are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human
being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
Post by freeisbest
Scalia and Thomas bring closer the day when every
member of the
judiciary will have to prove that s/he is mentally
healthy and
intelligent enough to place on the Supreme Court.
No, theat proof won't be a "test" they can cram
for.
So he's insane because you disagree with his opinion,
which you
never read?
.....In the tradition of police inspector Javert!
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
2009-08-19 01:09:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
Post by Harry Hope
_________________________________________________
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it
is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to
judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they
are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human
being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
Post by freeisbest
Scalia and Thomas bring closer the day when every
member of the
judiciary will have to prove that s/he is mentally
healthy and
intelligent enough to place on the Supreme Court.
No, theat proof won't be a "test" they can cram
for.
So he's insane because you disagree with his opinion,
which you
never read?
.....In the tradition of police inspector Javert!
This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
murder. Of course you'll blame it on the one armed man.
Iarnrod
2009-08-19 01:16:08 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 18, 7:09 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Harry Hope
_________________________________________________
      I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it
is a standard
against which to judge Justices.  It is a fine way to
judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they
are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human
being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
      Scalia and Thomas bring closer the day when every
member of the
judiciary will have to prove that s/he is mentally
healthy and
intelligent enough to place on the Supreme Court.
      No, theat proof won't be a "test" they can cram
for.
So he's insane because you disagree with his opinion,
which you
never read?
.....In the tradition of police inspector Javert!
This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
murder.
Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
2009-08-19 15:57:25 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 18, 7:09 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
Post by Harry Hope
_________________________________________________
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to
judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human
being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
Post by freeisbest
Scalia and Thomas bring closer the day when every
member of the
judiciary will have to prove that s/he is mentally
healthy and
intelligent enough to place on the Supreme Court.
No, theat proof won't be a "test" they can cram
for.
So he's insane because you disagree with his opinion,
which you
never read?
.....In the tradition of police inspector Javert!
This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
murder.
Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
I think you might want to know what you are talking about before
talking:

#begin quote 557 U. S. ____ (2009) SCALIA, J., dissenting
Eighteen years ago, after a trial untainted by constitu-
ional defect, a unanimous jury found petitioner Troy
Anthony Davis guilty of the murder of Mark Allen
MacPhail. The evidence showed that MacPhail, an off-
uty police officer, was shot multiple times after respond-
ng to the beating of a homeless man in a restaurant
arking lot. Davis v. State, 263 Ga. 5, 5–6, 426 S. E. 2d
44, 845–846, cert. denied, 510 U. S. 950 (1993). Davis
dmits that he was present during the beating of the
omeless man, but he maintains that it was one of his
ompanions who shot Officer MacPhail.
#end quote
Iarnrod
2009-08-19 23:03:43 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 19, 9:57 am, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
On Aug 18, 7:09 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
Post by Harry Hope
_________________________________________________
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to
judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
Post by freeisbest
Scalia and Thomas bring closer the day when every member of the
judiciary will have to prove that s/he is mentally
healthy and
intelligent enough to place on the Supreme Court.
No, theat proof won't be a "test" they can cram
for.
So he's insane because you disagree with his opinion,
which you
never read?
.....In the tradition of police inspector Javert!
This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
murder.
Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
I think you might want to know what you are talking about before
Oh the fuckin' IRONY!! How stupid do YOU have to be to disagree with
your betters, then post proof that you are wrong!! DELICIOUS, honey! I
LUV it when this shit happens. It happens a LOT with you rightards who
can't read, like I said.

Now, on to the ass-whuppin'....
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
#begin quote 557 U. S. ____ (2009) SCALIA, J., dissenting
Eighteen years ago, after a trial untainted by constitu-
ional defect, a unanimous jury found petitioner Troy
Anthony Davis guilty of the murder of Mark Allen
MacPhail. The evidence showed that MacPhail, an off-
uty police officer, was shot multiple times after respond-
ng to the beating of a homeless man in a restaurant
arking lot. Davis v. State, 263 Ga. 5, 5–6, 426 S. E. 2d
44, 845–846, cert. denied, 510 U. S. 950 (1993). Davis
dmits that he was present during the beating of the
omeless man, but he maintains that it was one of his
ompanions who shot Officer MacPhail.
#end quote
OK. Now, kookshit dope, re-read it again and again.

Where does it say the defendants beat the cop? Where?

In fact, where does it say Davis even beat the homeless man? He was
present.

Now, explain, bird brain, how you get from this that Davis beat up the
cop...

We'll wait.

BWAHAAAAHHAHAAAHAHAAAA!!!!!!

Like I told ya, just say no to drugs when you're trying to talk with
the big people.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
2009-08-20 03:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iarnrod
On Aug 19, 9:57 am, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
On Aug 18, 7:09 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
Post by Harry Hope
_________________________________________________
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it
is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to
judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
Post by freeisbest
Scalia and Thomas bring closer the day when every member of the
judiciary will have to prove that s/he is mentally
healthy and
intelligent enough to place on the Supreme Court.
No, theat proof won't be a "test" they can cram for.
So he's insane because you disagree with his opinion, which you
never read?
.....In the tradition of police inspector Javert!
This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
murder.
Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
I think you might want to know what you are talking about before
Oh the fuckin' IRONY!! How stupid do YOU have to be to disagree with
your betters,
I don't know, it hasn't happened yet.
Post by Iarnrod
then post proof that you are wrong!! DELICIOUS, honey! I
LUV it when this shit happens. It happens a LOT with you rightards who
can't read, like I said.
Now, on to the ass-whuppin'....
I'm not following you. Why do I have to post proof that I'm wrong?
That's up to you.
Post by Iarnrod
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
#begin quote 557 U. S. ____ (2009) SCALIA, J., dissenting
Eighteen years ago, after a trial untainted by constitu-
ional defect, a unanimous jury found petitioner Troy
Anthony Davis guilty of the murder of Mark Allen
MacPhail. The evidence showed that MacPhail, an off-
uty police officer, was shot multiple times after respond-
ng to the beating of a homeless man in a restaurant
arking lot. Davis v. State, 263 Ga. 5, 5–6, 426 S. E. 2d
44, 845–846, cert. denied, 510 U. S. 950 (1993). Davis
dmits that he was present during the beating of the
omeless man, but he maintains that it was one of his
ompanions who shot Officer MacPhail.
#end quote
OK. Now, kookshit dope, re-read it again and again.
Where does it say the defendants beat the cop? Where?
They were beating up a homeless man. They then murdered the cop.
Post by Iarnrod
In fact, where does it say Davis even beat the homeless man? He was
present.
I think we've not read any of the case itself, but do you think
anyone who was there beating the crap out of the homeless man is
"innocent"/
Post by Iarnrod
Now, explain, bird brain, how you get from this that Davis beat up the
cop...
He shot the cop.
Post by Iarnrod
We'll wait.
BWAHAAAAHHAHAAAHAHAAAA!!!!!!
Like I told ya, just say no to drugs when you're trying to talk with
the big people.
So all I said wrong was *who* he was beating up. You denied the
whole thing. Somehow you think that means you win?
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidential
library sized like an overseas shipping container filled with stuff
he didn't want anyone to find till long after his death, the real
deed to Whitewater, the envelope for the Tyson Foods chicken
payoffs, the real gun he used to whack Foster, the keys to the
Exocet missile he took Ron Brown out with, copies of another few
thousand illegally acquired FBI files on his enemies, tickets to
Tahiti from the White House Travel Office, a few more soiled
dresses, a couple of cases of well chewed Cuban cigars, and the
unabridged version of his autobiography. That last one was touch
and go just getting the bugger in.
Iarnrod
2009-08-20 23:45:28 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 19, 9:35 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
On Aug 19, 9:57 am, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
On Aug 18, 7:09 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Harry Hope
_________________________________________________
      I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it
is a standard
against which to judge Justices.  It is a fine way to
judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they
are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human
being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
      Scalia and Thomas bring closer the day when every
member of the
judiciary will have to prove that s/he is mentally healthy and
intelligent enough to place on the Supreme Court.
      No, theat proof won't be a "test" they can cram
for.
So he's insane because you disagree with his opinion, which you
never read?
.....In the tradition of police inspector Javert!
This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
murder.
Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
I think you might want to know what you are talking about before
Oh the fuckin' IRONY!! How stupid do YOU have to be to disagree with
your betters,
I don't know, it hasn't happened yet.
Clue for you, kooktard, it's happens with every one of your posts but
you're too stupid to even know it! <snicker>
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
then post proof that you are wrong!! DELICIOUS, honey! I
LUV it when this shit happens. It happens a LOT with you rightards who
can't read, like I said.
Now, on to the ass-whuppin'....
I'm not following you.
Obviously. You're fuckin' INSANE.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Why do I have to post proof that I'm wrong?
I didn't say you HAD to, Bill Bonehead. I said you DID.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
That's up to you.
Well, I was gonna but you beat me to it!!

Like I said, I LOVE it!
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
#begin quote 557 U. S. ____ (2009) SCALIA, J., dissenting
Eighteen years ago, after a trial untainted by constitu-
ional defect, a unanimous jury found petitioner Troy
Anthony Davis guilty of the murder of Mark Allen
MacPhail.  The evidence showed that MacPhail, an off-
uty police officer, was shot multiple times after respond-
ng to the beating of a homeless man in  a restaurant
arking lot.  Davis v. State, 263 Ga. 5, 5–6, 426 S. E. 2d
44, 845–846, cert. denied, 510 U. S. 950 (1993).   Davis
dmits that he was  present during the beating of the
omeless man, but he maintains that it was one  of his
ompanions who shot Officer MacPhail.
#end quote
OK. Now, kookshit dope, re-read it again and again.
Where does it say the defendants beat the cop? Where?
They were beating up a homeless man.
OK.... that's right. Although it's not clear that Davis was a
participant in that.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
They then murdered the cop.
Yeah... although again it's not clear Davis was the perp.

I'm lookin' around here for the part where you try to defend your
false statement and I can't seem to find it. Where's the part where
they beat up the cop, like you claimed?
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
In fact, where does it say Davis even beat the homeless man? He was
present.
I think we've not read any of the case itself, but do you think
anyone who was there beating the crap out of the homeless man is
"innocent"/
You're presuming the answer in your question, idiot. You are presuming
he was beating the homeless man as a premise to the question "was he
beating the homeless man." Yes he was there, but again I ask, where
does it say he was one of the "beaters?"

You're really not very good at this stuff. You must be new.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
Now, explain, bird brain, how you get from this that Davis beat up the
cop...
He shot the cop.
Stop dodging the question, idiot. Look, you know you're busted in a
lie, you look really pathetic dancing around this like Ginger Rogers.

And whether he show the cop or not is the subject of the appeal. The
cop was shot; you claimed Davis and the others also beat him up. From
where did you get this previously unknown piece of information? Did
you make it up just like everything else you make up?
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
We'll wait.
BWAHAAAAHHAHAAAHAHAAAA!!!!!!
Like I told ya, just say no to drugs when you're trying to talk with
the big people.
So all I said wrong was *who* he was beating up.
that's not all, but it took you to the end of your reply to admit your
fuck-up after trying to defend it shallowly above? Pretty dishonest
there, kookshit. But typical for your kind.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
You denied the whole thing.
WTF?!?!? Now you follow up your abject and too-late apology for LYING
with yet ANOTHER KIE??? Where the FUCK doo you find me denying the
whole thing? Good lord, you're an incredible asshole; either that or
just plain zero-IQ stupid.

The only thing I denied is that he beat up the cop, a claim of yours
that was completely FALSE.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Somehow you think that means you win?
I win because I am correct in everything I've said. You lost because
you LIE, rightard.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
2009-08-21 01:09:57 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 19, 9:35 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
On Aug 19, 9:57 am, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
On Aug 18, 7:09 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
Post by Harry Hope
_________________________________________________
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it
is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to
judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they
are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human
being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
Post by freeisbest
Scalia and Thomas bring closer the day when every
member of the
judiciary will have to prove that s/he is mentally
healthy and
intelligent enough to place on the Supreme Court.
No, theat proof won't be a "test" they can cram for.
So he's insane because you disagree with his opinion, which you
never read?
.....In the tradition of police inspector Javert!
This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
murder.
Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
I think you might want to know what you are talking about before
Oh the fuckin' IRONY!! How stupid do YOU have to be to disagree with
your betters,
I don't know, it hasn't happened yet.
Clue for you, kooktard, it's happens with every one of your posts but
you're too stupid to even know it! <snicker>
Apparently I'm still too stupid to see it since I'm not getting
that vibe in this post.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
then post proof that you are wrong!! DELICIOUS, honey! I
LUV it when this shit happens. It happens a LOT with you rightards who
can't read, like I said.
Now, on to the ass-whuppin'....
I'm not following you.
Obviously. You're fuckin' INSANE.
In what way was I ass-whupped?
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Why do I have to post proof that I'm wrong?
I didn't say you HAD to, Bill Bonehead. I said you DID.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
That's up to you.
Well, I was gonna but you beat me to it!!
Like I said, I LOVE it!
I was correct. The person on Death Row was involved in the beating
before he shot the cop. This is what I said:

#begin quote
ME> This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
ME> murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
ME> murder.

YOU> Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
#end quote

He did shoot the cop. He beat a homeless man. So the only thing I
got wrong was that there was an additional victim. You, OTOH,
didn't know anything about the case so you made silly claims, that
he didn't do anything.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
#begin quote 557 U. S. ____ (2009) SCALIA, J., dissenting
Eighteen years ago, after a trial untainted by constitu-
ional defect, a unanimous jury found petitioner Troy
Anthony Davis guilty of the murder of Mark Allen
MacPhail. The evidence showed that MacPhail, an off-
uty police officer, was shot multiple times after respond-
ng to the beating of a homeless man in a restaurant
arking lot. Davis v. State, 263 Ga. 5, 5–6, 426 S. E. 2d
44, 845–846, cert. denied, 510 U. S. 950 (1993). Davis
dmits that he was present during the beating of the
omeless man, but he maintains that it was one of his
ompanions who shot Officer MacPhail.
#end quote
OK. Now, kookshit dope, re-read it again and again.
Where does it say the defendants beat the cop? Where?
They were beating up a homeless man.
OK.... that's right. Although it's not clear that Davis was a
participant in that.
So let me get this straight. There are seven people at the site of
the beating of the homeless man. The convicted is there. He's not
involved, however, and then someone shoots a cop who attempts to
help the homeless man and it's again not the convicted, YET
everyone in the group says that he did it.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
They then murdered the cop.
Yeah... although again it's not clear Davis was the perp.
I'm lookin' around here for the part where you try to defend your
false statement and I can't seem to find it. Where's the part where
they beat up the cop, like you claimed?
He shot the cop. This minor difference is utterly irrelevant to
anything. In fact, it's worse since there are two victims.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
In fact, where does it say Davis even beat the homeless man? He was
present.
I think we've not read any of the case itself, but do you think
anyone who was there beating the crap out of the homeless man is
"innocent"/
You're presuming the answer in your question, idiot. You are presuming
he was beating the homeless man as a premise to the question "was he
beating the homeless man." Yes he was there, but again I ask, where
does it say he was one of the "beaters?"
Where does it say? We don't have but a short opinion and dissent
from the SCOTUS court. We don't have the testimony and all the
other evidence here. Provide that.
You're really not very good at this stuff. You must be new.
I'm good enough to be kicking you around. I actually had read the
court's opinions. You obviously still haven't.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
Now, explain, bird brain, how you get from this that Davis beat up the
cop...
He shot the cop.
Stop dodging the question, idiot. Look, you know you're busted in a
lie, you look really pathetic dancing around this like Ginger Rogers.
What's the "lie" supposed to be?
And whether he show the cop or not is the subject of the appeal.
There is no appeal, he's exhausted all his appeals. If this was an
appeal, it would be different.
The
cop was shot; you claimed Davis and the others also beat him up. From
where did you get this previously unknown piece of information? Did
you make it up just like everything else you make up?
I didn't make anything up, I mixed up the second victim with the
cop. This is irrelevant.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
We'll wait.
BWAHAAAAHHAHAAAHAHAAAA!!!!!!
Like I told ya, just say no to drugs when you're trying to talk with
the big people.
So all I said wrong was *who* he was beating up.
that's not all, but it took you to the end of your reply to admit your
fuck-up after trying to defend it shallowly above? Pretty dishonest
there, kookshit. But typical for your kind.
Please, you didn't know anything about this case, you just wanted
to let a murderer go, so you ranted and then I post what the court
said and you seek out an irrelevant mistake. The situation for the
convicted is worse because there are two victims of his homicidal
violence.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
You denied the whole thing.
WTF?!?!? Now you follow up your abject and too-late apology for LYING
with yet ANOTHER KIE??? Where the FUCK doo you find me denying the
whole thing? Good lord, you're an incredible asshole; either that or
just plain zero-IQ stupid.
The only thing I denied is that he beat up the cop, a claim of yours
that was completely FALSE.
Let's have it again:

#begin quote
ME> This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
ME> murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
ME> murder.

YOU> Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
#end quote

See how you deny he beat anyone and deny that he shot anyone?
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Somehow you think that means you win?
I win because I am correct in everything I've said. You lost because
you LIE, rightard.
Try it again:


#begin quote
ME> This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
ME> murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
ME> murder.

YOU> Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
#end quote
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidential
library sized like an overseas shipping container filled with stuff
he didn't want anyone to find till long after his death, the real
deed to Whitewater, the envelope for the Tyson Foods chicken
payoffs, the real gun he used to whack Foster, the keys to the
Exocet missile he took Ron Brown out with, copies of another few
thousand illegally acquired FBI files on his enemies, tickets to
Tahiti from the White House Travel Office, a few more soiled
dresses, a couple of cases of well chewed Cuban cigars, and the
unabridged version of his autobiography. That last one was touch
and go just getting the bugger in.
Iarnrod
2009-08-21 02:41:45 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 20, 7:09 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
On Aug 19, 9:35 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
On Aug 19, 9:57 am, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
On Aug 18, 7:09 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
Post by Harry Hope
_________________________________________________
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it
is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to
judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they
are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human
being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
Post by freeisbest
Scalia and Thomas bring closer the day when every
member of the
judiciary will have to prove that s/he is mentally
healthy and
intelligent enough to place on the Supreme Court.
No, theat proof won't be a "test" they can cram
for.
So he's insane because you disagree with his opinion,
which you
never read?
.....In the tradition of police inspector Javert!
This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
murder.
Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
I think you might want to know what you are talking about before
Oh the fuckin' IRONY!! How stupid do YOU have to be to disagree with
your betters,
I don't know, it hasn't happened yet.
Clue for you, kooktard, it's happens with every one of your posts but
you're too stupid to even know it! <snicker>
Apparently I'm still too stupid to see it …
That’s the first insight you’ve ever show, nutbag.
since I'm not getting that vibe in this post.
Such is the fate of the clueless kook.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
then post proof that you are wrong!! DELICIOUS, honey! I
LUV it when this shit happens. It happens a LOT with you rightards who
can't read, like I said.
Now, on to the ass-whuppin'....
I'm not following you.
Obviously. You're fuckin' INSANE.
In what way was I ass-whupped?
By my proving your outright LIE and then by your defense of that LIE
only to ACKNOWLEDGE your lie in the very same post. Very rarely do we
get you kooks so worked up in a kooker foam that you blurt out
contradictory things in the same post.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Why do I have to post proof that I'm wrong?
I didn't say you HAD to, Bill Bonehead. I said you DID.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
That's up to you.
Well, I was gonna but you beat me to it!!
Like I said, I LOVE it!
I was correct.
Nope, not once, not yet.
The person on Death Row was involved in the beating
We know what you said, it’s still in the posts. You said the guy on
Death Row beat the cop, when there is no indication the cop was ever
touched by them. Now you just refer to the “beating” in an attempt to
slide over your lie and move the designation of “beating victim” from
the cop to the homeless man, like we won’t notice your little
sidestep.
#begin quote
ME> This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
ME> murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
ME> murder.
YOU> Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
#end quote
He did shoot the cop.
That is what is in doubt, kook. That’s the point of the appeal, that
the wrong person was convicted.

Try to keep up.
He beat a homeless man.
No direct evidence of that. Being present doesn’t mean he
participated.
So the only thing I
got wrong was that there was an additional victim.
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!! Not NEARLY the only thing!! You got the whole
thing wrong, Bill Bonehead.
You, OTOH,
didn't know anything about the case so you made silly claims, that
he didn't do anything.
BWAHAHAHAAA!! I correctly laid out the case, you stupid shithead. You
got it all wrong. Now as you try to wipe my heel mark off your ass,
you pretend I was wrong! Too funny! Typical Republican tactic.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
#begin quote 557 U. S. ____ (2009) SCALIA, J., dissenting
Eighteen years ago, after a trial untainted by constitu-
ional defect, a unanimous jury found petitioner Troy
Anthony Davis guilty of the murder of Mark Allen
MacPhail. The evidence showed that MacPhail, an off-
uty police officer, was shot multiple times after respond-
ng to the beating of a homeless man in a restaurant
arking lot. Davis v. State, 263 Ga. 5, 5–6, 426 S. E. 2d
44, 845–846, cert. denied, 510 U. S. 950 (1993). Davis
dmits that he was present during the beating of the
omeless man, but he maintains that it was one of his
ompanions who shot Officer MacPhail.
#end quote
OK. Now, kookshit dope, re-read it again and again.
Where does it say the defendants beat the cop? Where?
They were beating up a homeless man.
OK.... that's right. Although it's not clear that Davis was a
participant in that.
So let me get this straight. There are seven people at the site of
the beating of the homeless man. The convicted is there. He's not
involved, however, and then someone shoots a cop who attempts to
help the homeless man and it's again not the convicted, YET
everyone in the group says that he did it.
So you DON’T know the case and HAVEN’T read the SCOTUS opinions, why
didn’t you SAY so!!
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
They then murdered the cop.
Yeah... although again it's not clear Davis was the perp.
I'm lookin' around here for the part where you try to defend your
false statement and I can't seem to find it. Where's the part where
they beat up the cop, like you claimed?
He shot the cop.
Uh, that’s what’s being contested, kook. Do you even KNOW how to read?
This minor difference…
Your claim that the cop was beaten when he was not is a minor
difference? Tell that to the homeless man.
is utterly irrelevant to
anything.
Not at all.
In fact, it's worse since there are two victims.
Of someone. Maybe not Davis. You apparently, like Scalia, say it’s OK
to execute an innocent person as long as he was convicted.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
In fact, where does it say Davis even beat the homeless man? He was
present.
I think we've not read any of the case itself, but do you think
anyone who was there beating the crap out of the homeless man is
"innocent"/
You're presuming the answer in your question, idiot. You are presuming
he was beating the homeless man as a premise to the question "was he
beating the homeless man." Yes he was there, but again I ask, where
does it say he was one of the "beaters?"
Where does it say? We don't have but a short opinion and dissent
from the SCOTUS court. We don't have the testimony and all the
other evidence here. Provide that.
No. Fuck you. YOU are the moron asswipe who filled in all the blanks
with making up your own evidence. YOU are the one who presumes things
not in evidence.
You're really not very good at this stuff. You must be new.
I'm good enough to be kicking you around.
BWAHAHAHHAAAAAA!!!! My heel is permanently implanted in your ass, Bill
Bonehead.
I actually had read the
court's opinions. You obviously still haven't.
WOW, the nerve! You could NOT have read it, you got every fact of the
case WRONG including claiming the cop had been beaten. *I* read it and
corrected you, now you try to pose as the one who read it?? What a
lying republican you are, if I may be redundant for a moment.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
Now, explain, bird brain, how you get from this that Davis beat up the
cop...
He shot the cop.
Stop dodging the question, idiot. Look, you know you're busted in a
lie, you look really pathetic dancing around this like Ginger Rogers.
What's the "lie" supposed to be?
BWAHAAHAHAHAAAA!!!! Nice try, kook. You need asbestos underwear if
you’re gonna be a pants-on-fire liar.
And whether he show the cop or not is the subject of the appeal.
There is no appeal,
What the FUCK do you imagine then was the matter before the court,
moron? Did SCOTUS just cast about the country for random cases to
issue unsolicited opinions on? Gawd, you’re dumb.
he's exhausted all his appeals.
If that were true we wouldn’t be here.
The
cop was shot; you claimed Davis and the others also beat him up. From
where did you get this previously unknown piece of information? Did
you make it up just like everything else you make up?
I didn't make anything up, I mixed up the second victim with the
cop. This is irrelevant.
No, this is a lie that betrays your complete ignorance of the facts of
the case. You just make shit up as you go along.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Iarnrod
We'll wait.
BWAHAAAAHHAHAAAHAHAAAA!!!!!!
Like I told ya, just say no to drugs when you're trying to talk with
the big people.
So all I said wrong was *who* he was beating up.
that's not all, but it took you to the end of your reply to admit your
fuck-up after trying to defend it shallowly above? Pretty dishonest
there, kookshit. But typical for your kind.
Please, you didn't know anything about this case,
Correction: I know oh so much more about it than you do and you are so
off-base you thought things that WEREN’T true were part of the case.
You were worse than knowing nothing about it, you thought you knew
things that were false.
you just wanted to let a murderer go
Bullshit, kookface. Keep killers locked up the rest of their lives,
execute them if you have a death penalty… MY desire is that we not
execute innocent people. You and Scalia and Thomas don’t give a shit,
as long as the rules were followed.
, so you ranted
You rant, I kick ass.
and then I post what the court said …
AFTER I already had addressed it. I read the case before YOU did.
and you seek out an irrelevant mistake.
I didn’t have to seek anything out, honey, you dropped it in my lap.
You actually based your argument on the false premise, that if he
hadn’t shot the cop he at least had beat him. That lie completely
changes things. I bet you have no clue why.
The situation for the
convicted is worse because there are two victims of his homicidal
violence.
Wrong. Did the homeless man die? Did Davis hit him? Did Davis shoot
the cop? Seven witnesses have recanted their testimony.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
You denied the whole thing.
WTF?!?!? Now you follow up your abject and too-late apology for LYING
with yet ANOTHER LIE??? Where the FUCK do you find me denying the
whole thing? Good lord, you're an incredible asshole; either that or
just plain zero-IQ stupid.
The only thing I denied is that he beat up the cop, a claim of yours
that was completely FALSE.
#begin quote
ME> This guy didn't steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he
ME> murdered a cop. If he didn't do that, he beat a cop before the
ME> murder.
YOU> Umm, learn to read, kook. He did neither.
#end quote
See how you deny he beat anyone and deny that he shot anyone?
That is the claim.

I win. <sips Victory Iced Tea>
China Blue Man Group
2009-08-18 22:54:08 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@yahoo.co.uk>,
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
It's funny to read things like from Republicans who are so loud about the being
christians. Jesus repeatedly said the Law is not a thing in itself, to be
applied by mercy or compassion, but that mercy and compassion where inherent to
proper justice. The famous example is the stoning; in the text the sentence
itself is not disputed, but the execution of the sentence depends on people who
are no better than the adultress. When they are looked at her with mercy and
compassion instead of strictly by the Law, their support of the sentence shifted
dramatically.

His complaints about priests and pharisees are about their willingness to apply
the Law strictly with no regard to what it was actually doing to the people.
Scalia has placed himself on the side of the pharisees. For federal cases there
is still an escape clause that the President can set aside a sentence to insure
the innocent are not punished.
--
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be,
Silver silverware - Where is the love? Reverend.
Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you, Sarah.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
2009-08-19 01:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
It's funny to read things like from Republicans who are so loud about the being
christians. Jesus repeatedly said the Law is not a thing in itself, to be
applied by mercy or compassion, but that mercy and compassion where inherent to
proper justice.
I'm not sure what Jesus has to do with the common law system. But
where did he say those things? I think he said something like
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s. That was a tax
case, but you get the idea.
Post by Pete10016
The famous example is the stoning; in the text the sentence
itself is not disputed, but the execution of the sentence depends on people who
are no better than the adultress. When they are looked at her with mercy and
compassion instead of strictly by the Law, their support of the sentence shifted
dramatically.
While you can sometimes make an Equal Protection argument, I
suspect that you can't in the case of murder, "Oh, it's oK for me
to murder because not everyone who has murdered has got the death
penalty." Wrong answer.
Post by Pete10016
His complaints about priests and pharisees are about their willingness to apply
the Law strictly with no regard to what it was actually doing to the people.
Scalia has placed himself on the side of the pharisees. For federal cases there
is still an escape clause that the President can set aside a sentence to insure
the innocent are not punished.
There you go. The guy could appeal to the president. But I thought
he had to appeal to the governor of the state since it was a state
law issue.
China Blue Man Group
2009-08-19 01:55:43 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@yahoo.co.uk>,
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
It's funny to read things like from Republicans who are so loud about the being
christians. Jesus repeatedly said the Law is not a thing in itself, to be
applied by mercy or compassion, but that mercy and compassion where inherent to
proper justice.
I'm not sure what Jesus has to do with the common law system. But
The Law of Moses, not english common law.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
where did he say those things? I think he said something like
God requires mercy not sacrafice. The greatest commandment is to love your
neighbour. Blessed are the merciful. The sabbath was made for man, not man for
the sabbath. Let he who is without sin throw the first stone. Et cetera.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
There you go. The guy could appeal to the president. But I thought
Not if it's a state prosecution.
--
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be,
Silver silverware - Where is the love? Reverend.
Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you, Sarah.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
2009-08-19 04:39:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
It's funny to read things like from Republicans who are so loud about the being
christians. Jesus repeatedly said the Law is not a thing in itself, to be
applied by mercy or compassion, but that mercy and compassion where inherent to
proper justice.
I'm not sure what Jesus has to do with the common law system. But
The Law of Moses, not english common law.
You mean like the Ten Commandments?
Post by Pete10016
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
where did he say those things? I think he said something like
God requires mercy not sacrafice. The greatest commandment is to love your
neighbour. Blessed are the merciful. The sabbath was made for man, not man for
the sabbath. Let he who is without sin throw the first stone. Et cetera.
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
There you go. The guy could appeal to the president. But I thought
Not if it's a state prosecution.
The question right now is what's the federal question?
Dave Heil
2009-08-22 23:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by freeisbest
I hope we bother to have a Constitution because it is a standard
against which to judge Justices. It is a fine way to judge whether or
not the actions and thoughts of Justices prove that they are mentally
healthy and that their opinions are advanced by a human being capable
of understanding such concepts 'justice', 'equality', and
'compassion'.
How about following the law?
It's funny to read things like from Republicans who are so loud about the being
christians. Jesus repeatedly said the Law is not a thing in itself, to be
applied by mercy or compassion, but that mercy and compassion where inherent to
proper justice.
I'm not sure what Jesus has to do with the common law system. But
The Law of Moses, not english common law.
The United States does not operate under the Law of Moses.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
2009-08-18 20:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Hope
Aug 17th, 2009
Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing the
innocent.
Kook Alert.
Pete10016
2009-08-18 20:40:33 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Harry Hope
Aug 17th, 2009
Scalia says there's nothing unconstitutional about executing the
innocent.
Kook Alert.
True. The constitution is about a process, not outcomes.
Once the process is followed, there is nothing left to do.
On a moral order only (big jump here),
it is terrible to execute the innocent.
Get it?
Beam Me Up Scotty
2009-08-19 04:15:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Hope
Aug 17th, 2009
Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing the
innocent.
That's Obama that says that, and the innocent are the very young.
Iarnrod
2009-08-19 05:23:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Harry Hope
Aug 17th, 2009
Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing the
innocent.
That's Obama that says that, and the innocent are the very young.
Just say no to drugs.
zzpat
2009-08-18 23:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Hope
Aug 17th, 2009
Scalia says there�s nothing unconstitutional about executing the
innocent.
By Ian Millhiser
Almost two decades ago, Troy Anthony Davis was convicted of murder and
sentenced to die.
Since then, seven of the witnesses against him have recanted their
testimony,
http://www.ajc.com/news/us-supreme-court-orders-new-hearing-for-troy-davis-117260.html
and some have even implicated Sylvester �Redd� Coles, a witness who
testified that Davis was the shooter.
In light of the very real evidence that Davis could be innocent of the
crime that placed him on death row, the Supreme Court today invoked a
rarely used procedure giving Davis an opportunity to challenge his
conviction.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/hearing-on-innocence-claim-ordered/
Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, however, Justice Antonin
Scalia criticized his colleagues for thinking that mere innocence is
http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-1443Scalia.pdf
This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution
of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is
later able to convince a habeas court that he is �actually� innocent.
Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question
unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based
on alleged �actual innocence� is constitutionally cognizable.
So in Justice Scalia�s world, the law has no problem with sending an
innocent man to die.
One wonders why we even bother to have a Constitution.
_____________________________________________________
Wanna put the straitjacket under or over the animal's robe?
Harry
No sane person still thinks Scalia or Thomas are fit to be on the
Bench. Impeach them and remove them from office before they do more
harm to our constitution.

"Give me freedom or give me death" should have been "kill the
innocent." This is the new America conservatives have given us.

The right wing has gone over the cliff...and we shouldn't allow them
to take the rest of us with them.
Bret Cahill
2009-08-19 02:53:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Hope
Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing the
innocent.
By Ian Millhiser
Almost two decades ago, Troy Anthony Davis was convicted of murder and
sentenced to die.
Since then, seven of the witnesses against him have recanted their
testimony,http://www.ajc.com/news/us-supreme-court-orders-new-hearing-for-troy-...
and some have even implicated Sylvester “Redd” Coles, a witness who
testified that Davis was the shooter.
In light of the very real evidence that Davis could be innocent of the
crime that placed him on death row, the Supreme Court today invoked a
rarely used procedure giving Davis an opportunity to challenge his
conviction.http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/hearing-on-innocence-claim-ordered/
Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, however, Justice Antonin
Scalia criticized his colleagues for thinking that mere innocence is
grounds to overturn a conviction:http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-1443Scalia.pdf
This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution
of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is
later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.
Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question
unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based
on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.
So in Justice Scalia’s world, the law has no problem with sending an
innocent man to die.  
One wonders why we even bother to have a Constitution.
_____________________________________________________
Wanna put the straitjacket under or over the animal's robe?
Not that Scalia ever does anything except bottom fish for fundies and
nutters but appeals and supreme courts only decide law, not facts.

The trial courts, defense lawyers, prosecutors and juries have a great
responsibility to make sure the facts are properly presented and
decided.

Too often they treat justice and life and death decisions as just
another job.

Americans just aren't critical thinkers which is why so manny innocent
are getting executed.


Bret Cahill
Wilson Woods
2009-08-20 07:44:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Americans just aren't critical thinkers
True, across the spectrum.
Post by Bret Cahill
which is why so manny innocent
are getting executed.
No evidence, of course, that "so manny [sic] innocent are getting execute."
China Blue Syndrom
2009-08-20 08:21:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Bret Cahill
Americans just aren't critical thinkers
True, across the spectrum.
Post by Bret Cahill
which is why so manny innocent
are getting executed.
No evidence, of course, that "so manny [sic] innocent are getting execute."
And by gum let's make sure there is no evidence.
--
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be,
Silver silverware - Where is the love? Reverend.
Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you, Sarah.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-20 14:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by China Blue Syndrom
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Bret Cahill
Americans just aren't critical thinkers
True, across the spectrum.
Post by Bret Cahill
which is why so manny innocent
are getting executed.
No evidence, of course, that "so manny [sic] innocent are getting execute."
And by gum let's make sure there is no evidence.
No, it requires no effort - there just isn't any.
Bret Cahill
2009-08-20 15:31:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by China Blue Syndrom
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Bret Cahill
Americans just aren't critical thinkers
True, across the spectrum.
Post by Bret Cahill
which is why so manny innocent
are getting executed.
No evidence, of course, that "so manny [sic] innocent are getting execute."
And by gum let's make sure there is no evidence.
No, it requires no effort -
None of Jefferson's "eternal vigilance" stuff necessary here. No need
to investigate or pay attention. Just kick back and everything will
take care of itself -- kind of like looneytarians waiting for
libertaria to break out.
Post by Wilson Woods
there just isn't any.
Just hundreds of inmates being released after decades behind bars on
DNA evidence.

Some idiot from the U. Houston Law School said, "this shows the system
is working."

Yea, it shows the _scientists_ are working.

It isn't working for those without DNA evidence.


Bret Cahill
Wilson Woods
2009-08-20 21:49:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by China Blue Syndrom
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Bret Cahill
Americans just aren't critical thinkers
True, across the spectrum.
Post by Bret Cahill
which is why so manny innocent
are getting executed.
No evidence, of course, that "so manny [sic] innocent are getting execute."
And by gum let's make sure there is no evidence.
No, it requires no effort -
None of Jefferson's "eternal vigilance" stuff necessary here. No need
to investigate or pay attention. Just kick back and everything will
take care of itself -- kind of like looneytarians waiting for
libertaria to break out.
There is no effort required to show there is no evidence. Rather, the
effort would need to be expended by *you* to try to show that there is any.
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Wilson Woods
there just isn't any.
Just hundreds of inmates being released after decades behind bars on
DNA evidence.
The silly claim was "so manny [sic] innocent are getting execute [sic]".
There is no evidence that many - even any - innocent people have been
executed. It obviously would be regrettable if any were, but the thread
is about Scalia's comment about constitutionality of carrying out
sentence imposed on someone who is actually innocent. Scalia is
correct: it is not unconstitutional to carry out the sentence. As
another person correctly noted, trial courts determine guilt or
innocence; appellate courts decide questions of law.
China Blue Syndrom
2009-08-20 22:06:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
sentence imposed on someone who is actually innocent. Scalia is
correct: it is not unconstitutional to carry out the sentence. As
another person correctly noted, trial courts determine guilt or
innocence; appellate courts decide questions of law.
The appeal was to let a trial court reexamine the case and possibly develop new
evidence that would change the verdict.

And you're still full of shit.
--
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be,
Silver silverware - Where is the love? Reverend.
Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you, Sarah.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-21 04:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by China Blue Syndrom
Post by Wilson Woods
sentence imposed on someone who is actually innocent. Scalia is
correct: it is not unconstitutional to carry out the sentence. As
another person correctly noted, trial courts determine guilt or
innocence; appellate courts decide questions of law.
The appeal was to let a trial court reexamine the case and possibly develop new
evidence that would change the verdict.
Trial courts do not "develop new evidence".
China Blue Syndrom
2009-08-20 16:31:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by China Blue Syndrom
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Bret Cahill
Americans just aren't critical thinkers
True, across the spectrum.
Post by Bret Cahill
which is why so manny innocent
are getting executed.
No evidence, of course, that "so manny [sic] innocent are getting execute."
And by gum let's make sure there is no evidence.
No, it requires no effort - there just isn't any.
That opens two possibilities: (1) That there were no innocent people convicted
before the Innocence Project, and that they have successfully cleared all
wrongly convicted people. Or (2) you're full of shit.

Given your past performance, I will go with (2).
--
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be,
Silver silverware - Where is the love? Reverend.
Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you, Sarah.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-20 21:52:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by China Blue Syndrom
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by China Blue Syndrom
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Bret Cahill
Americans just aren't critical thinkers
True, across the spectrum.
Post by Bret Cahill
which is why so manny innocent
are getting executed.
No evidence, of course, that "so manny [sic] innocent are getting execute [sic]."
And by gum let's make sure there is no evidence.
No, it requires no effort - there just isn't any.
That opens two possibilities: (1) That there were no innocent people convicted
before the Innocence Project, and that they have successfully cleared all
wrongly convicted people. Or (2) you're full of shit.
Certainly innocent people have been convicted of crimes; that's not the
question. The question is, have any innocent people been executed? No
one has offered any evidence that an innocent person has been executed.
I figure it's likely that the number is greater than zero, but we're
talking about *evidence*, not anyone's conjecture. There is no evidence
of any executions carried out on convicts who were in fact innocent.

We're also talking about your fatuous comment, "let's make sure there is
no evidence." No one is trying to suppress any evidence. If you think
you have some, trot it out and we'll have a look at it.
China Blue Syndrom
2009-08-20 22:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by China Blue Syndrom
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by China Blue Syndrom
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Bret Cahill
Americans just aren't critical thinkers
True, across the spectrum.
Post by Bret Cahill
which is why so manny innocent
are getting executed.
No evidence, of course, that "so manny [sic] innocent are getting execute [sic]."
And by gum let's make sure there is no evidence.
No, it requires no effort - there just isn't any.
That opens two possibilities: (1) That there were no innocent people convicted
before the Innocence Project, and that they have successfully cleared all
wrongly convicted people. Or (2) you're full of shit.
Certainly innocent people have been convicted of crimes; that's not the
question. The question is, have any innocent people been executed? No
one has offered any evidence that an innocent person has been executed.
Providing further evidence of (2).
Post by Wilson Woods
no evidence." No one is trying to suppress any evidence. If you think
Except Scalia.
--
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be,
Silver silverware - Where is the love? Reverend.
Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you, Sarah.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-21 04:02:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by China Blue Syndrom
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by China Blue Syndrom
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by China Blue Syndrom
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Bret Cahill
Americans just aren't critical thinkers
True, across the spectrum.
Post by Bret Cahill
which is why so manny innocent
are getting executed.
No evidence, of course, that "so manny [sic] innocent are getting execute [sic]."
And by gum let's make sure there is no evidence.
No, it requires no effort - there just isn't any.
That opens two possibilities: (1) That there were no innocent people convicted
before the Innocence Project, and that they have successfully cleared all
wrongly convicted people. Or (2) you're full of shit.
Certainly innocent people have been convicted of crimes; that's not the
question. The question is, have any innocent people been executed? No
one has offered any evidence that an innocent person has been executed.
Providing further evidence of (2).
No evidence at all, of course.
Post by China Blue Syndrom
Post by Wilson Woods
no evidence." No one is trying to suppress any evidence. If you think
Except Scalia.
No. No one. There is no evidence of any innocent convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit, nor is there any evidence of an
attempt to suppress evidence of incorrect executions.
2009-08-21 23:25:35 UTC
Permalink
No. No one. There is no evidence of any innocent convicts being executed
for crimes they didn't commit,
Hooboy, not only a racist and bigot, but a class A moron too boot!

ROFLOL!
Wilson Woods
2009-08-21 16:05:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by
No. No one. There is no evidence of any innocent convicts being executed
for crimes they didn't commit,
Hooboy, not only a racist and bigot,
Neither.

There is no evidence of any "innocent" convicts having been executed.
John Q public
2009-08-21 17:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by
Post by Wilson Woods
No. No one. There is no evidence of any innocent convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit,
Hooboy, not only a racist and bigot,
Neither.
There is no evidence of any "innocent" convicts having been executed.
Innocent or not the main deliberation was that said individuals were
accorded due process of
law in their conviction. That is what constitution put in place, not
perfection of results.

BTW a recent study shows that 11 or more lives are saved for every
person put to death decrying
liberal claims to opposite
Wilson Woods
2009-08-21 23:02:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Q public
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by
Post by Wilson Woods
No. No one. There is no evidence of any innocent convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit,
Hooboy, not only a racist and bigot,
Neither.
There is no evidence of any "innocent" convicts having been executed.
Innocent or not the main deliberation was that said individuals were
accorded due process of
law in their conviction. That is what constitution put in place, not
perfection of results.
Exactly right, and that is Scalia's point. It's a worthwhile point.
Post by John Q public
BTW a recent study shows that 11 or more lives are saved for every
person put to death decrying liberal claims to opposite
I don't believe that number. Personally, I'm opposed to the death
penalty across the board; just not for the reasons advanced by leftist
hand-wringing apologists for criminals. The fact is, I don't give a
fuck about the lives of criminals; if they're guilty, their lives have
no value to me at all. My opposition to the DP is based on what using
says about us. Using the DP says we behave irrationally and according
to the basest instincts. I want humans, particularly those living in
advanced western democracies, to be better than that.

Scalia's point is that a defendant's *claim* of "actual innocence" is
meaningless as far as the appellate courts' application of the
Constitution is concerned, and he is absolutely right.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
2009-08-23 23:11:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
My opposition to the DP is based on what using
says about us. Using the DP says we behave irrationally and according
to the basest instincts.
There's nothing base about removing the worst of the worst as
threats. And the death penalty provides another level of punishment
which I can show works again and again to get serial killers to
give up the bodies, get other killers to plead out to life without
parole and otherwise facilitates the work of the police and courts
in providing a safe community.
Post by Wilson Woods
I want humans, particularly those living in
advanced western democracies, to be better than that.
Scalia's point is that a defendant's *claim* of "actual innocence" is
meaningless as far as the appellate courts' application of the
Constitution is concerned, and he is absolutely right.
What he said is that if there is some actual innocence issue at the
Constitutional level, then the court should answer that. But the
majority chose instead to send the case to a lower court with some
instructions that the lower court doesn't really have the power to
use for any actual change in the result.
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidential
library sized like an overseas shipping container filled with stuff
he didn't want anyone to find till long after his death, the real
deed to Whitewater, the envelope for the Tyson Foods chicken
payoffs, the real gun he used to whack Foster, the keys to the
Exocet missile he took Ron Brown out with, copies of another few
thousand illegally acquired FBI files on his enemies, tickets to
Tahiti from the White House Travel Office, a few more soiled
dresses, a couple of cases of well chewed Cuban cigars, and the
unabridged version of his autobiography. That last one was touch
and go just getting the bugger in.
Sid9
2009-08-24 00:11:29 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Wilson Woods
My opposition to the DP is based on what using
says about us. Using the DP says we behave irrationally
and according
to the basest instincts.
There's nothing base about removing the worst of the worst
as
threats. And the death penalty provides another level of
punishment
which I can show works again and again to get serial
killers to
give up the bodies, get other killers to plead out to life
without
parole and otherwise facilitates the work of the police
and courts
in providing a safe community.
Post by Wilson Woods
I want humans, particularly those living in
advanced western democracies, to be better than that.
Scalia's point is that a defendant's *claim* of "actual
innocence" is
meaningless as far as the appellate courts' application
of the
Constitution is concerned, and he is absolutely right.
What he said is that if there is some actual innocence
issue at the
Constitutional level, then the court should answer that.
But the
majority chose instead to send the case to a lower court
with some
instructions that the lower court doesn't really have the
power to
use for any actual change in the result.
.
.
.
Americans, being imperfect, have executed innocent people.

DA's, to protect their egos, refuse to review the evidence
when DNA evidence can be obtained
DA's, to protect their chances for re-election, refuse to
review the evidence when DNA evidence can be obtained.

Plus a hundred other reasons innocent men die.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-24 07:05:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Wilson Woods
My opposition to the DP is based on what using
says about us. Using the DP says we behave irrationally
and according
to the basest instincts.
There's nothing base about removing the worst of the worst
as
threats. And the death penalty provides another level of
punishment
which I can show works again and again to get serial
killers to
give up the bodies, get other killers to plead out to life
without
parole and otherwise facilitates the work of the police
and courts
in providing a safe community.
Post by Wilson Woods
I want humans, particularly those living in
advanced western democracies, to be better than that.
Scalia's point is that a defendant's *claim* of "actual
innocence" is
meaningless as far as the appellate courts' application
of the
Constitution is concerned, and he is absolutely right.
What he said is that if there is some actual innocence
issue at the
Constitutional level, then the court should answer that.
But the
majority chose instead to send the case to a lower court
with some
instructions that the lower court doesn't really have the
power to
use for any actual change in the result.
.
.
.
Americans, being imperfect, have executed innocent people.
No evidence of that.
Sid9
2009-08-24 09:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Wilson Woods
My opposition to the DP is based on what using
says about us. Using the DP says we behave
irrationally and according
to the basest instincts.
There's nothing base about removing the worst of the
worst as
threats. And the death penalty provides another level of
punishment
which I can show works again and again to get serial
killers to
give up the bodies, get other killers to plead out to
life without
parole and otherwise facilitates the work of the police
and courts
in providing a safe community.
Post by Wilson Woods
I want humans, particularly those living in
advanced western democracies, to be better than that.
Scalia's point is that a defendant's *claim* of "actual
innocence" is
meaningless as far as the appellate courts' application
of the
Constitution is concerned, and he is absolutely right.
What he said is that if there is some actual innocence
issue at the
Constitutional level, then the court should answer that.
But the
majority chose instead to send the case to a lower court
with some
instructions that the lower court doesn't really have
the power to
use for any actual change in the result.
.
.
.
Americans, being imperfect, have executed innocent
people.
No evidence of that.
You seem to claim that this human endeavor is perfect and
that no errors have ever occurred.
2009-08-25 03:22:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Wilson Woods
My opposition to the DP is based on what using
says about us. Using the DP says we behave irrationally and according
to the basest instincts.
There's nothing base about removing the worst of the worst as
threats. And the death penalty provides another level of punishment
which I can show works again and again to get serial killers to
give up the bodies, get other killers to plead out to life without
parole and otherwise facilitates the work of the police and courts
in providing a safe community.
Post by Wilson Woods
I want humans, particularly those living in
advanced western democracies, to be better than that.
Scalia's point is that a defendant's *claim* of "actual innocence" is
meaningless as far as the appellate courts' application of the
Constitution is concerned, and he is absolutely right.
What he said is that if there is some actual innocence issue at the
Constitutional level, then the court should answer that. But the
majority chose instead to send the case to a lower court with some
instructions that the lower court doesn't really have the power to
use for any actual change in the result.
.
.
.
Americans, being imperfect, have executed innocent people.
No evidence of that.
You seem to claim that this human endeavor is perfect and that no errors
have ever occurred.
This guys just a fuckwit troll and is full of shit , sid.

There are plenty of documented cases of wrongly convicted inmates being
exonerated, with and without DNA evidence.


Cue the willy woods troll fuckwit...> "that's not the issue".

LOL!
Wilson Woods
2009-08-24 16:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Wilson Woods
My opposition to the DP is based on what using
says about us. Using the DP says we behave irrationally and according
to the basest instincts.
There's nothing base about removing the worst of the worst as
threats. And the death penalty provides another level of punishment
which I can show works again and again to get serial killers to
give up the bodies, get other killers to plead out to life without
parole and otherwise facilitates the work of the police and courts
in providing a safe community.
Post by Wilson Woods
I want humans, particularly those living in
advanced western democracies, to be better than that.
Scalia's point is that a defendant's *claim* of "actual innocence" is
meaningless as far as the appellate courts' application of the
Constitution is concerned, and he is absolutely right.
What he said is that if there is some actual innocence issue at the
Constitutional level, then the court should answer that. But the
majority chose instead to send the case to a lower court with some
instructions that the lower court doesn't really have the power to
use for any actual change in the result.
.
.
.
Americans, being imperfect, have executed innocent people.
No evidence of that.
You seem to claim that this human endeavor is perfect and that no errors
have ever occurred.
This guys just a fuckwit troll and is full of shit
Neither, cuntflaps.

Your fucking system clock is still wrong, cuntflaps - fix it.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-24 16:01:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Wilson Woods
My opposition to the DP is based on what using
says about us. Using the DP says we behave
irrationally and according
to the basest instincts.
There's nothing base about removing the worst of the
worst as
threats. And the death penalty provides another level of
punishment
which I can show works again and again to get serial
killers to
give up the bodies, get other killers to plead out to
life without
parole and otherwise facilitates the work of the police
and courts
in providing a safe community.
Post by Wilson Woods
I want humans, particularly those living in
advanced western democracies, to be better than that.
Scalia's point is that a defendant's *claim* of "actual
innocence" is
meaningless as far as the appellate courts' application
of the
Constitution is concerned, and he is absolutely right.
What he said is that if there is some actual innocence
issue at the
Constitutional level, then the court should answer that.
But the
majority chose instead to send the case to a lower court
with some
instructions that the lower court doesn't really have
the power to
use for any actual change in the result.
.
.
.
Americans, being imperfect, have executed innocent
people.
No evidence of that.
You seem to claim that this human endeavor is perfect and
that no errors have ever occurred.
You are a liar - I claimed no such thing. What I state - it isn't
merely a claim - is that there is no *evidence* that any innocent person
has been executed. That's a fact: there is no such evidence. You
believe that innocent people have been executed, but that's a matter of
religious faith on your part. You have no evidence; nothing but blind
faith.
China Blue Syndrome
2009-08-24 19:21:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
You are a liar - I claimed no such thing. What I state - it isn't
merely a claim - is that there is no *evidence* that any innocent person
has been executed. That's a fact: there is no such evidence. You
believe that innocent people have been executed, but that's a matter of
religious faith on your part. You have no evidence; nothing but blind
faith.
Sorry, kid, but I already understand what you're trying to do, and you're wrong.
Since you use this same argument to protect racism, it's clear you are not
rational.
--
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be,
Silver silverware - Where is the love? Reverend.
Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you, Sarah.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-25 04:07:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by China Blue Syndrome
Post by Wilson Woods
You are a liar - I claimed no such thing. What I state - it isn't
merely a claim - is that there is no *evidence* that any innocent person
has been executed. That's a fact: there is no such evidence. You
believe that innocent people have been executed, but that's a matter of
religious faith on your part. You have no evidence; nothing but blind
faith.
Sorry, kid, but I already understand what you're trying to do, and you're wrong.
Sorry, "kid", but you *don't* understand, and I'm right, and you are
wrong.

There is *NO* evidence that any innocent person has been executed. You
irrational leftists *believe* as a matter of religious faith that some
have, but there is no *evidence* that any innocent person has been
executed.
Gogarty
2009-08-25 13:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by China Blue Syndrome
Post by Wilson Woods
You are a liar - I claimed no such thing. What I state - it isn't
merely a claim - is that there is no *evidence* that any innocent person
has been executed. That's a fact: there is no such evidence. You
believe that innocent people have been executed, but that's a matter of
religious faith on your part. You have no evidence; nothing but blind
faith.
Sorry, kid, but I already understand what you're trying to do, and you're wrong.
Sorry, "kid", but you *don't* understand, and I'm right, and you are
wrong.
There is *NO* evidence that any innocent person has been executed. You
irrational leftists *believe* as a matter of religious faith that some
have, but there is no *evidence* that any innocent person has been
executed.
Common sense says otherwise.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-25 16:30:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iarnrod
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by China Blue Syndrome
Post by Wilson Woods
You are a liar - I claimed no such thing. What I state - it isn't
merely a claim - is that there is no *evidence* that any innocent person
has been executed. That's a fact: there is no such evidence. You
believe that innocent people have been executed, but that's a matter of
religious faith on your part. You have no evidence; nothing but blind
faith.
Sorry, kid, but I already understand what you're trying to do, and you're
wrong.
Post by Wilson Woods
Sorry, "kid", but you *don't* understand, and I'm right, and you are
wrong.
There is *NO* evidence that any innocent person has been executed. You
irrational leftists *believe* as a matter of religious faith that some
have, but there is no *evidence* that any innocent person has been
executed.
Common sense says otherwise.
No, it doesn't. Common sense doesn't say anything about evidence.
China Blue Syndrome
2009-08-25 18:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iarnrod
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by China Blue Syndrome
Post by Wilson Woods
You are a liar - I claimed no such thing. What I state - it isn't
merely a claim - is that there is no *evidence* that any innocent person
has been executed. That's a fact: there is no such evidence. You
believe that innocent people have been executed, but that's a matter of
religious faith on your part. You have no evidence; nothing but blind
faith.
Sorry, kid, but I already understand what you're trying to do, and you're
wrong.
Post by Wilson Woods
Sorry, "kid", but you *don't* understand, and I'm right, and you are
wrong.
There is *NO* evidence that any innocent person has been executed. You
irrational leftists *believe* as a matter of religious faith that some
have, but there is no *evidence* that any innocent person has been
executed.
Common sense says otherwise.
That depends on what passes for common sense.

Suppose in some career field 10% of the people are black, 20% are asian, and 70%
are white. In a large enough company the representations of each group should
match the available job candidates. In a company of 200, you might have 21
blacks, 38 asians, 141 white. You can then compute the confidence that any
differences are random chance. If the company has 200 asians, you have a
statistical proof that that the differences are not pure chance, that something
else caused the difference. Thus you have identified discriminatory hiring
statistically without identifying the actual mechanism.

Similarly you can look at result of the Innocence Project and estimate the
number of innocent people in jail or even executed. However in US law courts
will not hear a case which is moot, which means they can do nothing about it.
Once an innocent person is executed, their innocence is moot and there will be
no further actions to clear him.

What bozo is doing is adapting a racist argument that if you cannot identify a
specific mechanism of discrimination, there cannot be discrimination, despite
overwhelming statistical evidence. This was also the same argument that if you
could not identify the specific mechanism that smoking led to cancer, you could
not claim it, even though smokers got far more lung cancer than other people.
And now despite the statistical evidence, bozo's argument is because a court
does not find innocence, they aren't really innocent.

It's bullshit argument which appeals to the math ignorant. Hence bozo is going
to stick to it like a true believer. At this point I don't know if it is because
he is that stupid, or if he thinks everyone else is stupid.
--
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be,
Silver silverware - Where is the love? Reverend.
Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you, Sarah.
Sid9
2009-08-25 20:00:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by China Blue Syndrome
Post by China Blue Man Group
In article
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by China Blue Man Group
In article
Post by Wilson Woods
You are a liar - I claimed no such thing. What I
state - it isn't
merely a claim - is that there is no *evidence* that
any innocent person
has been executed. That's a fact: there is no such
evidence. You
believe that innocent people have been executed, but
that's a matter of
religious faith on your part. You have no evidence;
nothing but blind
faith.
Sorry, kid, but I already understand what you're
trying to do, and you're
wrong.
Post by Wilson Woods
Sorry, "kid", but you *don't* understand, and I'm right,
and you are
wrong.
There is *NO* evidence that any innocent person has been
executed. You
irrational leftists *believe* as a matter of religious
faith that some
have, but there is no *evidence* that any innocent
person has been
executed.
Common sense says otherwise.
That depends on what passes for common sense.
Suppose in some career field 10% of the people are black,
20% are asian, and 70%
are white. In a large enough company the representations
of each group should
match the available job candidates. In a company of 200,
you might have 21
blacks, 38 asians, 141 white. You can then compute the
confidence that any
differences are random chance. If the company has 200
asians, you have a
statistical proof that that the differences are not pure
chance, that something
else caused the difference. Thus you have identified
discriminatory hiring
statistically without identifying the actual mechanism.
Similarly you can look at result of the Innocence Project
and estimate the
number of innocent people in jail or even executed.
However in US law courts
will not hear a case which is moot, which means they can
do nothing about it.
Once an innocent person is executed, their innocence is
moot and there will be
no further actions to clear him.
What bozo is doing is adapting a racist argument that if
you cannot identify a
specific mechanism of discrimination, there cannot be
discrimination, despite
overwhelming statistical evidence. This was also the same
argument that if you
could not identify the specific mechanism that smoking led
to cancer, you could
not claim it, even though smokers got far more lung cancer
than other people.
And now despite the statistical evidence, bozo's argument
is because a court
does not find innocence, they aren't really innocent.
It's bullshit argument which appeals to the math ignorant.
Hence bozo is going
to stick to it like a true believer. At this point I don't
know if it is because
he is that stupid, or if he thinks everyone else is
stupid.
--
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm
whoever you want me to be,
Silver silverware - Where is the love?
Reverend.
Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? At least I
can stay in character.
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We
support you, Sarah.
Nice work!
Wilson Woods
2009-08-25 20:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
Post by China Blue Syndrome
Post by China Blue Man Group
In article
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by China Blue Man Group
In article
Post by Wilson Woods
You are a liar - I claimed no such thing. What I
state - it isn't
merely a claim - is that there is no *evidence* that
any innocent person
has been executed. That's a fact: there is no such
evidence. You
believe that innocent people have been executed, but
that's a matter of
religious faith on your part. You have no evidence;
nothing but blind
faith.
Sorry, kid, but I already understand what you're
trying to do, and you're
wrong.
Post by Wilson Woods
Sorry, "kid", but you *don't* understand, and I'm right,
and you are
wrong.
There is *NO* evidence that any innocent person has been
executed. You
irrational leftists *believe* as a matter of religious
faith that some
have, but there is no *evidence* that any innocent
person has been
executed.
Common sense says otherwise.
That depends on what passes for common sense.
Suppose in some career field 10% of the people are black,
20% are asian, and 70%
are white. In a large enough company the representations
of each group should
match the available job candidates. In a company of 200,
you might have 21
blacks, 38 asians, 141 white. You can then compute the
confidence that any
differences are random chance. If the company has 200
asians, you have a
statistical proof that that the differences are not pure
chance, that something
else caused the difference. Thus you have identified
discriminatory hiring
statistically without identifying the actual mechanism.
Similarly you can look at result of the Innocence Project
and estimate the
number of innocent people in jail or even executed.
However in US law courts
will not hear a case which is moot, which means they can
do nothing about it.
Once an innocent person is executed, their innocence is
moot and there will be
no further actions to clear him.
What bozo is doing is adapting a racist argument that if
you cannot identify a
specific mechanism of discrimination, there cannot be
discrimination, despite
overwhelming statistical evidence. This was also the same
argument that if you
could not identify the specific mechanism that smoking led
to cancer, you could
not claim it, even though smokers got far more lung cancer
than other people.
And now despite the statistical evidence, bozo's argument
is because a court
does not find innocence, they aren't really innocent.
It's bullshit argument which appeals to the math ignorant.
Hence bozo is going
to stick to it like a true believer. At this point I don't
know if it is because
he is that stupid, or if he thinks everyone else is
stupid.
--
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm
whoever you want me to be,
Silver silverware - Where is the love?
Reverend.
Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? At least I
can stay in character.
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We
support you, Sarah.
Nice work!
It's bullshit.
* US *
2009-08-26 10:50:00 UTC
Permalink
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/ncadp/content.jsp?content_KEY=2489&t=Innocent%20And%20Executed%20Section.dwt
2009-08-25 03:15:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Wilson Woods
My opposition to the DP is based on what using
says about us. Using the DP says we behave irrationally and according
to the basest instincts.
There's nothing base about removing the worst of the worst as
threats. And the death penalty provides another level of punishment
which I can show works again and again to get serial killers to
give up the bodies, get other killers to plead out to life without
parole and otherwise facilitates the work of the police and courts
in providing a safe community.
Post by Wilson Woods
I want humans, particularly those living in
advanced western democracies, to be better than that.
Scalia's point is that a defendant's *claim* of "actual innocence" is
meaningless as far as the appellate courts' application of the
Constitution is concerned, and he is absolutely right.
What he said is that if there is some actual innocence issue at the
Constitutional level, then the court should answer that. But the
majority chose instead to send the case to a lower court with some
instructions that the lower court doesn't really have the power to
use for any actual change in the result.
.
.
.
Americans, being imperfect, have executed innocent people.
No evidence of that.
Bullshit.

You're a lying little ballsack, aren't you ?
Wilson Woods
2009-08-24 16:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Wilson Woods
My opposition to the DP is based on what using
says about us. Using the DP says we behave irrationally and according
to the basest instincts.
There's nothing base about removing the worst of the worst as
threats. And the death penalty provides another level of punishment
which I can show works again and again to get serial killers to
give up the bodies, get other killers to plead out to life without
parole and otherwise facilitates the work of the police and courts
in providing a safe community.
Post by Wilson Woods
I want humans, particularly those living in
advanced western democracies, to be better than that.
Scalia's point is that a defendant's *claim* of "actual innocence" is
meaningless as far as the appellate courts' application of the
Constitution is concerned, and he is absolutely right.
What he said is that if there is some actual innocence issue at the
Constitutional level, then the court should answer that. But the
majority chose instead to send the case to a lower court with some
instructions that the lower court doesn't really have the power to
use for any actual change in the result.
.
.
.
Americans, being imperfect, have executed innocent people.
No evidence of that.
Bullshit.
No, not bullshit. There is no *evidence* that any innocent person has
been executed - period. You believe that innocent people have been
executed, but that's a matter of religious faith on your part. You have
no evidence; nothing but blind faith.
Sid9
2009-08-24 17:10:41 UTC
Permalink
.... tHe_PC_JelLlLy BeAn!! .! !!!
Post by
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Wilson Woods
My opposition to the DP is based on what using
says about us. Using the DP says we behave
irrationally and according
to the basest instincts.
There's nothing base about removing the worst of the
worst as
threats. And the death penalty provides another level
of punishment
which I can show works again and again to get serial
killers to
give up the bodies, get other killers to plead out to
life without
parole and otherwise facilitates the work of the
police and courts
in providing a safe community.
Post by Wilson Woods
I want humans, particularly those living in
advanced western democracies, to be better than that.
Scalia's point is that a defendant's *claim* of
"actual innocence" is
meaningless as far as the appellate courts'
application of the
Constitution is concerned, and he is absolutely
right.
What he said is that if there is some actual innocence
issue at the
Constitutional level, then the court should answer
that. But the
majority chose instead to send the case to a lower
court with some
instructions that the lower court doesn't really have
the power to
use for any actual change in the result.
.
.
.
Americans, being imperfect, have executed innocent
people.
No evidence of that.
Bullshit.
No, not bullshit. There is no *evidence* that any
innocent person has been executed - period. You believe
that innocent people have been executed, but that's a
matter of religious faith on your part. You have no
evidence; nothing but blind faith.
Nice to know that you believe there a one human endeavor
that is carried out flawlessly!
Wilson Woods
2009-08-25 16:30:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
.... tHe_PC_JelLlLy BeAn!! .! !!!
Post by
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Wilson Woods
My opposition to the DP is based on what using
says about us. Using the DP says we behave
irrationally and according
to the basest instincts.
There's nothing base about removing the worst of the
worst as
threats. And the death penalty provides another level
of punishment
which I can show works again and again to get serial
killers to
give up the bodies, get other killers to plead out to
life without
parole and otherwise facilitates the work of the
police and courts
in providing a safe community.
Post by Wilson Woods
I want humans, particularly those living in
advanced western democracies, to be better than that.
Scalia's point is that a defendant's *claim* of
"actual innocence" is
meaningless as far as the appellate courts'
application of the
Constitution is concerned, and he is absolutely
right.
What he said is that if there is some actual innocence
issue at the
Constitutional level, then the court should answer
that. But the
majority chose instead to send the case to a lower
court with some
instructions that the lower court doesn't really have
the power to
use for any actual change in the result.
.
.
.
Americans, being imperfect, have executed innocent
people.
No evidence of that.
Bullshit.
No, not bullshit. There is no *evidence* that any
innocent person has been executed - period. You believe
that innocent people have been executed, but that's a
matter of religious faith on your part. You have no
evidence; nothing but blind faith.
Nice to know that you believe there a one human endeavor
that is carried out flawlessly!
Not what I said.
Sid9
2009-08-25 20:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
.... tHe_PC_JelLlLy BeAn!! .! !!! .
Post by
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Wilson Woods
My opposition to the DP is based on what using
says about us. Using the DP says we behave
irrationally and according
to the basest instincts.
There's nothing base about removing the worst of the
worst as
threats. And the death penalty provides another
level of punishment
which I can show works again and again to get serial
killers to
give up the bodies, get other killers to plead out
to life without
parole and otherwise facilitates the work of the
police and courts
in providing a safe community.
Post by Wilson Woods
I want humans, particularly those living in
advanced western democracies, to be better than
that.
Scalia's point is that a defendant's *claim* of
"actual innocence" is
meaningless as far as the appellate courts'
application of the
Constitution is concerned, and he is absolutely
right.
What he said is that if there is some actual
innocence issue at the
Constitutional level, then the court should answer
that. But the
majority chose instead to send the case to a lower
court with some
instructions that the lower court doesn't really
have the power to
use for any actual change in the result.
.
.
.
Americans, being imperfect, have executed innocent
people.
No evidence of that.
Bullshit.
No, not bullshit. There is no *evidence* that any
innocent person has been executed - period. You believe
that innocent people have been executed, but that's a
matter of religious faith on your part. You have no
evidence; nothing but blind faith.
Nice to know that you believe there a one human endeavor
that is carried out flawlessly!
Not what I said.
You say: There is no *evidence* that any innocent person has
been executed - period.

That is a presumption that every executed person was given
both a fair and error free trial.

You are assuming level of perfection that humans are
incapable of achieving.

The death penalty sucks.

Most civilized nations have done away with it.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-25 20:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
.... tHe_PC_JelLlLy BeAn!! .! !!! .
Post by
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Wilson Woods
My opposition to the DP is based on what using
says about us. Using the DP says we behave
irrationally and according
to the basest instincts.
There's nothing base about removing the worst of the
worst as
threats. And the death penalty provides another
level of punishment
which I can show works again and again to get serial
killers to
give up the bodies, get other killers to plead out
to life without
parole and otherwise facilitates the work of the
police and courts
in providing a safe community.
Post by Wilson Woods
I want humans, particularly those living in
advanced western democracies, to be better than
that.
Scalia's point is that a defendant's *claim* of
"actual innocence" is
meaningless as far as the appellate courts'
application of the
Constitution is concerned, and he is absolutely
right.
What he said is that if there is some actual
innocence issue at the
Constitutional level, then the court should answer
that. But the
majority chose instead to send the case to a lower
court with some
instructions that the lower court doesn't really
have the power to
use for any actual change in the result.
.
.
.
Americans, being imperfect, have executed innocent
people.
No evidence of that.
Bullshit.
No, not bullshit. There is no *evidence* that any
innocent person has been executed - period. You believe
that innocent people have been executed, but that's a
matter of religious faith on your part. You have no
evidence; nothing but blind faith.
Nice to know that you believe there a one human endeavor
that is carried out flawlessly!
Not what I said.
You say: There is no *evidence* that any innocent person has
been executed - period.
Right.
Post by Sid9
That is a presumption that every executed person was given
both a fair and error free trial.
No, there isn't any such presumption. No trial is error free, but
appellate judges may find that the errors don't always merit overturning
the verdict.
Post by Sid9
You are assuming level of perfection that humans are
incapable of achieving.
No, I'm assuming nothing at all. I am *TELLING* you that you have no
evidence that anyone has been executed in error - that a convict who was
"actually innocent" has been put to death. And you don't.

Read my statement again more carefully. You are not getting it.
Post by Sid9
The death penalty sucks.
In your opinion.
Post by Sid9
Most civilized nations have done away with it.
Logically fallacious argument.
Sid9
2009-08-25 21:08:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
.... tHe_PC_JelLlLy BeAn!! .! !!! .
Post by
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Wilson Woods
My opposition to the DP is based on what using
says about us. Using the DP says we behave
irrationally and according
to the basest instincts.
There's nothing base about removing the worst of
the worst as
threats. And the death penalty provides another
level of punishment
which I can show works again and again to get
serial killers to
give up the bodies, get other killers to plead out
to life without
parole and otherwise facilitates the work of the
police and courts
in providing a safe community.
Post by Wilson Woods
I want humans, particularly those living in
advanced western democracies, to be better than
that.
Scalia's point is that a defendant's *claim* of
"actual innocence" is
meaningless as far as the appellate courts'
application of the
Constitution is concerned, and he is absolutely
right.
What he said is that if there is some actual
innocence issue at the
Constitutional level, then the court should answer
that. But the
majority chose instead to send the case to a lower
court with some
instructions that the lower court doesn't really
have the power to
use for any actual change in the result.
.
.
.
Americans, being imperfect, have executed innocent
people.
No evidence of that.
Bullshit.
No, not bullshit. There is no *evidence* that any
innocent person has been executed - period. You
believe that innocent people have been executed, but
that's a matter of religious faith on your part. You
have no evidence; nothing but blind faith.
Nice to know that you believe there a one human
endeavor that is carried out flawlessly!
Not what I said.
You say: There is no *evidence* that any innocent person
has been executed - period.
Right.
Post by Sid9
That is a presumption that every executed person was
given both a fair and error free trial.
No, there isn't any such presumption. No trial is error
free, but appellate judges may find that the errors don't
always merit overturning the verdict.
Post by Sid9
You are assuming level of perfection that humans are
incapable of achieving.
No, I'm assuming nothing at all. I am *TELLING* you that
you have no evidence that anyone has been executed in
error - that a convict who was "actually innocent" has
been put to death. And you don't.
Read my statement again more carefully. You are not
getting it.
Post by Sid9
The death penalty sucks.
In your opinion.
Post by Sid9
Most civilized nations have done away with it.
Logically fallacious argument.
Thank you Police Inspector Javert for your insight.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-25 21:18:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
.... tHe_PC_JelLlLy BeAn!! .! !!! .
Post by
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Wilson Woods
My opposition to the DP is based on what using
says about us. Using the DP says we behave
irrationally and according
to the basest instincts.
There's nothing base about removing the worst of
the worst as
threats. And the death penalty provides another
level of punishment
which I can show works again and again to get
serial killers to
give up the bodies, get other killers to plead out
to life without
parole and otherwise facilitates the work of the
police and courts
in providing a safe community.
Post by Wilson Woods
I want humans, particularly those living in
advanced western democracies, to be better than
that.
Scalia's point is that a defendant's *claim* of
"actual innocence" is
meaningless as far as the appellate courts'
application of the
Constitution is concerned, and he is absolutely
right.
What he said is that if there is some actual
innocence issue at the
Constitutional level, then the court should answer
that. But the
majority chose instead to send the case to a lower
court with some
instructions that the lower court doesn't really
have the power to
use for any actual change in the result.
.
.
.
Americans, being imperfect, have executed innocent
people.
No evidence of that.
Bullshit.
No, not bullshit. There is no *evidence* that any
innocent person has been executed - period. You
believe that innocent people have been executed, but
that's a matter of religious faith on your part. You
have no evidence; nothing but blind faith.
Nice to know that you believe there a one human
endeavor that is carried out flawlessly!
Not what I said.
You say: There is no *evidence* that any innocent person
has been executed - period.
Right.
Post by Sid9
That is a presumption that every executed person was
given both a fair and error free trial.
No, there isn't any such presumption. No trial is error
free, but appellate judges may find that the errors don't
always merit overturning the verdict.
Post by Sid9
You are assuming level of perfection that humans are
incapable of achieving.
No, I'm assuming nothing at all. I am *TELLING* you that
you have no evidence that anyone has been executed in
error - that a convict who was "actually innocent" has
been put to death. And you don't.
Read my statement again more carefully. You are not
getting it.
Post by Sid9
The death penalty sucks.
In your opinion.
Post by Sid9
Most civilized nations have done away with it.
Logically fallacious argument.
Thank you Police Inspector Javert
You already used it, and it was specious the first time.
Sid9
2009-08-25 21:20:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
.... tHe_PC_JelLlLy BeAn!! .! !!! .
Post by
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Wilson Woods
My opposition to the DP is based on what using
says about us. Using the DP says we behave
irrationally and according
to the basest instincts.
There's nothing base about removing the worst of
the worst as
threats. And the death penalty provides another
level of punishment
which I can show works again and again to get
serial killers to
give up the bodies, get other killers to plead
out to life without
parole and otherwise facilitates the work of the
police and courts
in providing a safe community.
Post by Wilson Woods
I want humans, particularly those living in
advanced western democracies, to be better than
that.
Scalia's point is that a defendant's *claim* of
"actual innocence" is
meaningless as far as the appellate courts'
application of the
Constitution is concerned, and he is absolutely
right.
What he said is that if there is some actual
innocence issue at the
Constitutional level, then the court should
answer that. But the
majority chose instead to send the case to a
lower court with some
instructions that the lower court doesn't really
have the power to
use for any actual change in the result.
.
.
.
Americans, being imperfect, have executed
innocent people.
No evidence of that.
Bullshit.
No, not bullshit. There is no *evidence* that any
innocent person has been executed - period. You
believe that innocent people have been executed, but
that's a matter of religious faith on your part.
You have no evidence; nothing but blind faith.
Nice to know that you believe there a one human
endeavor that is carried out flawlessly!
Not what I said.
You say: There is no *evidence* that any innocent
person has been executed - period.
Right.
Post by Sid9
That is a presumption that every executed person was
given both a fair and error free trial.
No, there isn't any such presumption. No trial is error
free, but appellate judges may find that the errors
don't always merit overturning the verdict.
Post by Sid9
You are assuming level of perfection that humans are
incapable of achieving.
No, I'm assuming nothing at all. I am *TELLING* you
that you have no evidence that anyone has been executed
in error - that a convict who was "actually innocent"
has been put to death. And you don't.
Read my statement again more carefully. You are not
getting it.
Post by Sid9
The death penalty sucks.
In your opinion.
Post by Sid9
Most civilized nations have done away with it.
Logically fallacious argument.
Thank you Police Inspector Javert
You already used it, and it was specious the first time.
Still applies.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-25 21:21:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
.... tHe_PC_JelLlLy BeAn!! .! !!! .
Post by
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Wilson Woods
My opposition to the DP is based on what using
says about us. Using the DP says we behave
irrationally and according
to the basest instincts.
There's nothing base about removing the worst of
the worst as
threats. And the death penalty provides another
level of punishment
which I can show works again and again to get
serial killers to
give up the bodies, get other killers to plead
out to life without
parole and otherwise facilitates the work of the
police and courts
in providing a safe community.
Post by Wilson Woods
I want humans, particularly those living in
advanced western democracies, to be better than
that.
Scalia's point is that a defendant's *claim* of
"actual innocence" is
meaningless as far as the appellate courts'
application of the
Constitution is concerned, and he is absolutely
right.
What he said is that if there is some actual
innocence issue at the
Constitutional level, then the court should
answer that. But the
majority chose instead to send the case to a
lower court with some
instructions that the lower court doesn't really
have the power to
use for any actual change in the result.
.
.
.
Americans, being imperfect, have executed
innocent people.
No evidence of that.
Bullshit.
No, not bullshit. There is no *evidence* that any
innocent person has been executed - period. You
believe that innocent people have been executed, but
that's a matter of religious faith on your part.
You have no evidence; nothing but blind faith.
Nice to know that you believe there a one human
endeavor that is carried out flawlessly!
Not what I said.
You say: There is no *evidence* that any innocent
person has been executed - period.
Right.
Post by Sid9
That is a presumption that every executed person was
given both a fair and error free trial.
No, there isn't any such presumption. No trial is error
free, but appellate judges may find that the errors
don't always merit overturning the verdict.
Post by Sid9
You are assuming level of perfection that humans are
incapable of achieving.
No, I'm assuming nothing at all. I am *TELLING* you
that you have no evidence that anyone has been executed
in error - that a convict who was "actually innocent"
has been put to death. And you don't.
Read my statement again more carefully. You are not
getting it.
Post by Sid9
The death penalty sucks.
In your opinion.
Post by Sid9
Most civilized nations have done away with it.
Logically fallacious argument.
Thank you Police Inspector Javert
You already used it, and it was specious the first time.
Still applies.
Still specious.
liberal
2009-08-21 18:19:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by China Blue Syndrom
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by China Blue Syndrom
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by China Blue Syndrom
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Bret Cahill
Americans just aren't critical thinkers
True, across the spectrum.
Post by Bret Cahill
which is why so manny innocent
are getting executed.
No evidence, of course, that "so manny [sic] innocent are getting
execute [sic]."
And by gum let's make sure there is no evidence.
No, it requires no effort - there just isn't any.
That opens two possibilities: (1) That there were no innocent people convicted
before the Innocence Project, and that they have successfully cleared all
wrongly convicted people. Or (2) you're full of shit.
Certainly innocent people have been convicted of crimes; that's not the
question.  The question is, have any innocent people been executed?  No
one has offered any evidence that an innocent person has been executed.
Providing further evidence of (2).
No evidence at all, of course.
Post by China Blue Syndrom
Post by Wilson Woods
no evidence."  No one is trying to suppress any evidence.  If you think
Except Scalia.
No.  No one.  There is no evidence of any innocent convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit, nor is there any evidence of an
attempt to suppress evidence of incorrect executions.
Ummm, do District Attorney offices automatically agree to things like
DNA testing in cases of condemned persons or must they be dragged into
courts?
Wilson Woods
2009-08-21 23:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by liberal
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by China Blue Syndrom
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by China Blue Syndrom
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by China Blue Syndrom
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Bret Cahill
Americans just aren't critical thinkers
True, across the spectrum.
Post by Bret Cahill
which is why so manny innocent
are getting executed.
No evidence, of course, that "so manny [sic] innocent are getting
execute [sic]."
And by gum let's make sure there is no evidence.
No, it requires no effort - there just isn't any.
That opens two possibilities: (1) That there were no innocent people convicted
before the Innocence Project, and that they have successfully cleared all
wrongly convicted people. Or (2) you're full of shit.
Certainly innocent people have been convicted of crimes; that's not the
question. The question is, have any innocent people been executed? No
one has offered any evidence that an innocent person has been executed.
Providing further evidence of (2).
No evidence at all, of course.
Post by China Blue Syndrom
Post by Wilson Woods
no evidence." No one is trying to suppress any evidence. If you think
Except Scalia.
No. No one. There is no evidence of any innocent convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit, nor is there any evidence of an
attempt to suppress evidence of incorrect executions.
Ummm, do District Attorney offices automatically agree to things like
DNA testing in cases of condemned persons or must they be dragged into
courts?
Beats me - but that isn't Scalia's concern, nor should it be.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
2009-08-23 23:06:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by liberal
Post by Wilson Woods
No. No one. There is no evidence of any innocent convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit, nor is there any evidence of an
attempt to suppress evidence of incorrect executions.
Ummm, do District Attorney offices automatically agree to things like
DNA testing in cases of condemned persons or must they be dragged into
courts?
DNA testing of what? There are plenty of examples of the prosecutor
opposing DNA fishing expeditions.
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidential
library sized like an overseas shipping container filled with stuff
he didn't want anyone to find till long after his death, the real
deed to Whitewater, the envelope for the Tyson Foods chicken
payoffs, the real gun he used to whack Foster, the keys to the
Exocet missile he took Ron Brown out with, copies of another few
thousand illegally acquired FBI files on his enemies, tickets to
Tahiti from the White House Travel Office, a few more soiled
dresses, a couple of cases of well chewed Cuban cigars, and the
unabridged version of his autobiography. That last one was touch
and go just getting the bugger in.
Sid9
2009-08-24 00:02:31 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by liberal
Post by Wilson Woods
No. No one. There is no evidence of any innocent
convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit, nor is there
any evidence of an
attempt to suppress evidence of incorrect executions.
Ummm, do District Attorney offices automatically agree to
things like
DNA testing in cases of condemned persons or must they be
dragged into
courts?
DNA testing of what? There are plenty of examples of the
prosecutor
opposing DNA fishing expeditions.
.
.
One man's "fishing expedition" is another man's life.

There's no appeal from an execution
Wilson Woods
2009-08-24 00:08:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by liberal
Post by Wilson Woods
No. No one. There is no evidence of any innocent
convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit, nor is there
any evidence of an
attempt to suppress evidence of incorrect executions.
Ummm, do District Attorney offices automatically agree to
things like
DNA testing in cases of condemned persons or must they be
dragged into
courts?
DNA testing of what? There are plenty of examples of the
prosecutor
opposing DNA fishing expeditions.
.
.
One man's "fishing expedition" is another man's life.
There's no appeal from an execution
Doesn't change the fact that the appellate courts do not have the job of
determining guilt or innocence.
China Blue Syndrome
2009-08-24 01:14:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by liberal
Post by Wilson Woods
No. No one. There is no evidence of any innocent
convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit, nor is there
any evidence of an
attempt to suppress evidence of incorrect executions.
Ummm, do District Attorney offices automatically agree to
things like
DNA testing in cases of condemned persons or must they be
dragged into
courts?
DNA testing of what? There are plenty of examples of the
prosecutor
opposing DNA fishing expeditions.
.
.
One man's "fishing expedition" is another man's life.
There's no appeal from an execution
Doesn't change the fact that the appellate courts do not have the job of
determining guilt or innocence.
They don't dumb shit. They order trial court to hear the matter and settle
questions of fact. You can walk and chew gum at the same time but you can
running into walls.
--
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be,
Silver silverware - Where is the love? Reverend.
Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you, Sarah.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-24 07:05:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by China Blue Syndrome
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by liberal
Post by Wilson Woods
No. No one. There is no evidence of any innocent
convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit, nor is there
any evidence of an
attempt to suppress evidence of incorrect executions.
Ummm, do District Attorney offices automatically agree to
things like
DNA testing in cases of condemned persons or must they be
dragged into
courts?
DNA testing of what? There are plenty of examples of the
prosecutor
opposing DNA fishing expeditions.
.
.
One man's "fishing expedition" is another man's life.
There's no appeal from an execution
Doesn't change the fact that the appellate courts do not have the job of
determining guilt or innocence.
They don't dumb shit. They order trial court to hear the matter and settle
questions of fact.
The trial court already did that.
Sid9
2009-08-24 01:36:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by liberal
Post by Wilson Woods
No. No one. There is no evidence of any innocent
convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit, nor is there
any evidence of an
attempt to suppress evidence of incorrect executions.
Ummm, do District Attorney offices automatically agree
to things like
DNA testing in cases of condemned persons or must they
be dragged into
courts?
DNA testing of what? There are plenty of examples of the
prosecutor
opposing DNA fishing expeditions.
.
.
One man's "fishing expedition" is another man's life.
There's no appeal from an execution
Doesn't change the fact that the appellate courts do not
have the job of determining guilt or innocence.
Fuck'em if they're in jail they must be guilty....
Give the hot shot...we can say how sorry we are when we find
out we got the wrong guy.
Thank you Police Inspector Javert!
Wilson Woods
2009-08-24 07:06:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by liberal
Post by Wilson Woods
No. No one. There is no evidence of any innocent
convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit, nor is there
any evidence of an
attempt to suppress evidence of incorrect executions.
Ummm, do District Attorney offices automatically agree
to things like
DNA testing in cases of condemned persons or must they
be dragged into
courts?
DNA testing of what? There are plenty of examples of the
prosecutor
opposing DNA fishing expeditions.
.
.
One man's "fishing expedition" is another man's life.
There's no appeal from an execution
Doesn't change the fact that the appellate courts do not
have the job of determining guilt or innocence.
Fuck'em if they're in jail they must be guilty....
Not the issue, and not the claim.
Sid9
2009-08-24 10:27:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
On Aug 21, 12:02 am, Wilson Woods
Post by Wilson Woods
No. No one. There is no evidence of any innocent
convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit, nor is there
any evidence of an
attempt to suppress evidence of incorrect
executions.
Ummm, do District Attorney offices automatically
agree to things like
DNA testing in cases of condemned persons or must
they be dragged into
courts?
DNA testing of what? There are plenty of examples of
the prosecutor
opposing DNA fishing expeditions.
.
.
One man's "fishing expedition" is another man's life.
There's no appeal from an execution
Doesn't change the fact that the appellate courts do not
have the job of determining guilt or innocence.
Fuck'em if they're in jail they must be guilty....
Not the issue, and not the claim.
What's the emoticon for sarcasm. I left it out.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-24 15:58:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
On Aug 21, 12:02 am, Wilson Woods
Post by Wilson Woods
No. No one. There is no evidence of any innocent
convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit, nor is there
any evidence of an
attempt to suppress evidence of incorrect
executions.
Ummm, do District Attorney offices automatically
agree to things like
DNA testing in cases of condemned persons or must
they be dragged into
courts?
DNA testing of what? There are plenty of examples of
the prosecutor
opposing DNA fishing expeditions.
.
.
One man's "fishing expedition" is another man's life.
There's no appeal from an execution
Doesn't change the fact that the appellate courts do not
have the job of determining guilt or innocence.
Fuck'em if they're in jail they must be guilty....
Not the issue, and not the claim.
What's the emoticon for sarcasm. I left it out.
You are exactly who would depend on emoticons for expression.

You are still missing the point, because you are a stupid leftist. The
point is, it is not the job of the appellate courts to consider guilt or
innocence. You foam-at-the-mouth leftists, who are too-easily inflamed
by results you don't like, think it's simply outrageous that Scalia
would say there is no constitutional protection against a sentence being
carried out on an "actually innocent" convict, but you are wrong. There
is nothing outrageous about the position at all; in fact, it is the
correct view of the Constitution and the role of the appellate courts.

You leftists just can't prevent your juvenile emotions from running away
with you.
Sid9
2009-08-24 17:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
On Aug 21, 12:02 am, Wilson Woods
Post by Wilson Woods
No. No one. There is no evidence of any innocent
convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit, nor is
there any evidence of an
attempt to suppress evidence of incorrect
executions.
Ummm, do District Attorney offices automatically
agree to things like
DNA testing in cases of condemned persons or must
they be dragged into
courts?
DNA testing of what? There are plenty of examples of
the prosecutor
opposing DNA fishing expeditions.
.
.
One man's "fishing expedition" is another man's life.
There's no appeal from an execution
Doesn't change the fact that the appellate courts do
not have the job of determining guilt or innocence.
Fuck'em if they're in jail they must be guilty....
Not the issue, and not the claim.
What's the emoticon for sarcasm. I left it out.
You are exactly who would depend on emoticons for
expression.
You are still missing the point, because you are a stupid
leftist. The point is, it is not the job of the appellate
courts to consider guilt or innocence. You
foam-at-the-mouth leftists, who are too-easily inflamed by
results you don't like, think it's simply outrageous that
Scalia would say there is no constitutional protection
against a sentence being carried out on an "actually
innocent" convict, but you are wrong. There is nothing
outrageous about the position at all; in fact, it is the
correct view of the Constitution and the role of the
appellate courts.
You leftists just can't prevent your juvenile emotions
from running away with you.
Thank you for the legal education.
I oppose the death penalty.
Period.
I am not interested in the intricacies of the law that
executes a man who should not have been executed.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-25 16:29:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
On Aug 21, 12:02 am, Wilson Woods
Post by Wilson Woods
No. No one. There is no evidence of any innocent
convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit, nor is
there any evidence of an
attempt to suppress evidence of incorrect
executions.
Ummm, do District Attorney offices automatically
agree to things like
DNA testing in cases of condemned persons or must
they be dragged into
courts?
DNA testing of what? There are plenty of examples of
the prosecutor
opposing DNA fishing expeditions.
.
.
One man's "fishing expedition" is another man's life.
There's no appeal from an execution
Doesn't change the fact that the appellate courts do
not have the job of determining guilt or innocence.
Fuck'em if they're in jail they must be guilty....
Not the issue, and not the claim.
What's the emoticon for sarcasm. I left it out.
You are exactly who would depend on emoticons for
expression.
You are still missing the point, because you are a stupid
leftist. The point is, it is not the job of the appellate
courts to consider guilt or innocence. You
foam-at-the-mouth leftists, who are too-easily inflamed by
results you don't like, think it's simply outrageous that
Scalia would say there is no constitutional protection
against a sentence being carried out on an "actually
innocent" convict, but you are wrong. There is nothing
outrageous about the position at all; in fact, it is the
correct view of the Constitution and the role of the
appellate courts.
You leftists just can't prevent your juvenile emotions
from running away with you.
Thank you for the legal education.
It's wasted on you, just like any other form of education.
Post by Sid9
I oppose the death penalty.
Good for you.
Post by Sid9
Period.
I am not interested in the intricacies of the law that
executes a man who should not have been executed.
You mean you're not interested in the rule of law. Period.
Sid9
2009-08-25 20:07:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
On Aug 21, 12:02 am, Wilson Woods
Post by Wilson Woods
No. No one. There is no evidence of any
innocent convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit, nor is
there any evidence of an
attempt to suppress evidence of incorrect
executions.
Ummm, do District Attorney offices automatically
agree to things like
DNA testing in cases of condemned persons or must
they be dragged into
courts?
DNA testing of what? There are plenty of examples
of the prosecutor
opposing DNA fishing expeditions.
.
.
One man's "fishing expedition" is another man's
life.
There's no appeal from an execution
Doesn't change the fact that the appellate courts do
not have the job of determining guilt or innocence.
Fuck'em if they're in jail they must be guilty....
Not the issue, and not the claim.
What's the emoticon for sarcasm. I left it out.
You are exactly who would depend on emoticons for
expression.
You are still missing the point, because you are a
stupid leftist. The point is, it is not the job of the
appellate courts to consider guilt or innocence. You
foam-at-the-mouth leftists, who are too-easily inflamed
by results you don't like, think it's simply outrageous
that Scalia would say there is no constitutional
protection against a sentence being carried out on an
"actually innocent" convict, but you are wrong. There
is nothing outrageous about the position at all; in
fact, it is the correct view of the Constitution and the
role of the appellate courts.
You leftists just can't prevent your juvenile emotions
from running away with you.
Thank you for the legal education.
It's wasted on you, just like any other form of education.
Post by Sid9
I oppose the death penalty.
Good for you.
Post by Sid9
Period.
I am not interested in the intricacies of the law that
executes a man who should not have been executed.
You mean you're not interested in the rule of law.
Period.
You make a false assumption about me.

I know what I mean and I don't need you to put words in my
mouth.

The death penalty is lousy law.

It's subject to abuse and error.

There is no way to appeal an error.

Most civilized nations have done away with the death penalty
Wilson Woods
2009-08-25 20:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
On Aug 21, 12:02 am, Wilson Woods
Post by Wilson Woods
No. No one. There is no evidence of any
innocent convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit, nor is
there any evidence of an
attempt to suppress evidence of incorrect
executions.
Ummm, do District Attorney offices automatically
agree to things like
DNA testing in cases of condemned persons or must
they be dragged into
courts?
DNA testing of what? There are plenty of examples
of the prosecutor
opposing DNA fishing expeditions.
.
.
One man's "fishing expedition" is another man's
life.
There's no appeal from an execution
Doesn't change the fact that the appellate courts do
not have the job of determining guilt or innocence.
Fuck'em if they're in jail they must be guilty....
Not the issue, and not the claim.
What's the emoticon for sarcasm. I left it out.
You are exactly who would depend on emoticons for
expression.
You are still missing the point, because you are a
stupid leftist. The point is, it is not the job of the
appellate courts to consider guilt or innocence. You
foam-at-the-mouth leftists, who are too-easily inflamed
by results you don't like, think it's simply outrageous
that Scalia would say there is no constitutional
protection against a sentence being carried out on an
"actually innocent" convict, but you are wrong. There
is nothing outrageous about the position at all; in
fact, it is the correct view of the Constitution and the
role of the appellate courts.
You leftists just can't prevent your juvenile emotions
from running away with you.
Thank you for the legal education.
It's wasted on you, just like any other form of education.
Post by Sid9
I oppose the death penalty.
Good for you.
Post by Sid9
Period.
I am not interested in the intricacies of the law that
executes a man who should not have been executed.
You mean you're not interested in the rule of law.
Period.
You make a false assumption about me.
No, I don't make any assumption about you at all. I make logical and
fact-based interpretations of what you tell me.
Post by Sid9
I know what I mean and I don't need you to put words in my
mouth.
I didn't put any words in your mouth. I made a correct inference based
on what you said. You wrote that you are "not interested in the
intricacies of the law that executes a man who should not have been
executed." But all that is saying is that you want the result you want,
regardless of how obtained. The law allows less than perfect outcomes,
as it must. You demand a perfect outcome, i.e., the one you like. You
don't care about the law.
Post by Sid9
The death penalty is lousy law.
Could be.
Post by Sid9
It's subject to abuse and error.
So are all possible sentences.
Post by Sid9
There is no way to appeal an error.
Most civilized nations have done away with the death penalty
argumentum ad populum
Sid9
2009-08-25 21:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
On Aug 21, 12:02 am, Wilson Woods
Post by Wilson Woods
No. No one. There is no evidence of any
innocent convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit, nor is
there any evidence of an
attempt to suppress evidence of incorrect
executions.
Ummm, do District Attorney offices
automatically agree to things like
DNA testing in cases of condemned persons or
must they be dragged into
courts?
DNA testing of what? There are plenty of
examples of the prosecutor
opposing DNA fishing expeditions.
.
.
One man's "fishing expedition" is another man's
life.
There's no appeal from an execution
Doesn't change the fact that the appellate courts
do not have the job of determining guilt or
innocence.
Fuck'em if they're in jail they must be guilty....
Not the issue, and not the claim.
What's the emoticon for sarcasm. I left it out.
You are exactly who would depend on emoticons for
expression.
You are still missing the point, because you are a
stupid leftist. The point is, it is not the job of
the appellate courts to consider guilt or innocence.
You foam-at-the-mouth leftists, who are too-easily
inflamed by results you don't like, think it's simply
outrageous that Scalia would say there is no
constitutional protection against a sentence being
carried out on an "actually innocent" convict, but you
are wrong. There is nothing outrageous about the
position at all; in fact, it is the correct view of
the Constitution and the role of the appellate courts.
You leftists just can't prevent your juvenile emotions
from running away with you.
Thank you for the legal education.
It's wasted on you, just like any other form of
education.
Post by Sid9
I oppose the death penalty.
Good for you.
Post by Sid9
Period.
I am not interested in the intricacies of the law that
executes a man who should not have been executed.
You mean you're not interested in the rule of law.
Period.
You make a false assumption about me.
No, I don't make any assumption about you at all. I make
logical and fact-based interpretations of what you tell
me.
Post by Sid9
I know what I mean and I don't need you to put words in
my mouth.
I didn't put any words in your mouth. I made a correct
inference based on what you said. You wrote that you are
"not interested in the intricacies of the law that
executes a man who should not have been executed." But
all that is saying is that you want the result you want,
regardless of how obtained. The law allows less than
perfect outcomes, as it must. You demand a perfect
outcome, i.e., the one you like. You don't care about the
law.
Post by Sid9
The death penalty is lousy law.
Could be.
Post by Sid9
It's subject to abuse and error.
So are all possible sentences.
Post by Sid9
There is no way to appeal an error.
Most civilized nations have done away with the death
penalty
argumentum ad populum
Whatever.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-25 21:18:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Sid9
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
On Aug 21, 12:02 am, Wilson Woods
Post by Wilson Woods
No. No one. There is no evidence of any
innocent convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit, nor is
there any evidence of an
attempt to suppress evidence of incorrect
executions.
Ummm, do District Attorney offices
automatically agree to things like
DNA testing in cases of condemned persons or
must they be dragged into
courts?
DNA testing of what? There are plenty of
examples of the prosecutor
opposing DNA fishing expeditions.
.
.
One man's "fishing expedition" is another man's
life.
There's no appeal from an execution
Doesn't change the fact that the appellate courts
do not have the job of determining guilt or
innocence.
Fuck'em if they're in jail they must be guilty....
Not the issue, and not the claim.
What's the emoticon for sarcasm. I left it out.
You are exactly who would depend on emoticons for
expression.
You are still missing the point, because you are a
stupid leftist. The point is, it is not the job of
the appellate courts to consider guilt or innocence.
You foam-at-the-mouth leftists, who are too-easily
inflamed by results you don't like, think it's simply
outrageous that Scalia would say there is no
constitutional protection against a sentence being
carried out on an "actually innocent" convict, but you
are wrong. There is nothing outrageous about the
position at all; in fact, it is the correct view of
the Constitution and the role of the appellate courts.
You leftists just can't prevent your juvenile emotions
from running away with you.
Thank you for the legal education.
It's wasted on you, just like any other form of
education.
Post by Sid9
I oppose the death penalty.
Good for you.
Post by Sid9
Period.
I am not interested in the intricacies of the law that
executes a man who should not have been executed.
You mean you're not interested in the rule of law.
Period.
You make a false assumption about me.
No, I don't make any assumption about you at all. I make
logical and fact-based interpretations of what you tell
me.
Post by Sid9
I know what I mean and I don't need you to put words in
my mouth.
I didn't put any words in your mouth. I made a correct
inference based on what you said. You wrote that you are
"not interested in the intricacies of the law that
executes a man who should not have been executed." But
all that is saying is that you want the result you want,
regardless of how obtained. The law allows less than
perfect outcomes, as it must. You demand a perfect
outcome, i.e., the one you like. You don't care about the
law.
Post by Sid9
The death penalty is lousy law.
Could be.
Post by Sid9
It's subject to abuse and error.
So are all possible sentences.
Post by Sid9
There is no way to appeal an error.
Most civilized nations have done away with the death
penalty
argumentum ad populum
Whatever.
Feeble concession noted but accepted despite its feebleness.
China Blue Syndrome
2009-08-24 19:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Woods
correct view of the Constitution and the role of the appellate courts.
Sorry, kid, but you're pretending appellate courts cannot order trial courts
around.
--
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be,
Silver silverware - Where is the love? Reverend.
Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you, Sarah.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-25 04:07:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by China Blue Syndrome
Post by Wilson Woods
correct view of the Constitution and the role of the appellate courts.
Sorry, kid,
Sorry, "kid", but your irrational religious faith is not supported by
evidence.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
2009-08-25 16:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by liberal
Post by Wilson Woods
No. No one. There is no evidence of any innocent
convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit, nor is there
any evidence of an
attempt to suppress evidence of incorrect executions.
Ummm, do District Attorney offices automatically agree to
things like
DNA testing in cases of condemned persons or must they be
dragged into
courts?
DNA testing of what? There are plenty of examples of the
prosecutor
opposing DNA fishing expeditions.
.
.
One man's "fishing expedition" is another man's life.
There's no appeal from an execution
There's no appeal when your appeals are run out either.
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidental
library sized like an overseas shipping container filled with stuff
he didn't want anyone to find till long after his death, the real
deed to Whitewater, the envelope for the Tyson Foods chicken
payoffs, the real gun he used to whack Foster, the keys to the
Exocet missile he took Ron Brown out with, copies of another few
thousand illegally acquired FBI files on his enemies, tickets to
Tahiti from the White House Travel Office, a few more soiled
dresses, a couple of cases of well chewed Cuban cigars, and the
unabridged version of his autobiography. That last one was touch
and go just getting the bugger in.
Lamont Cranston
2009-08-25 16:45:46 UTC
Permalink
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
On Aug 21, 12:02 am, Wilson Woods
Post by Wilson Woods
No. No one. There is no evidence of any innocent
convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit, nor is there
any evidence of an
attempt to suppress evidence of incorrect
executions.
Ummm, do District Attorney offices automatically agree
to
things like
DNA testing in cases of condemned persons or must they
be
dragged into
courts?
DNA testing of what? There are plenty of examples of
the
prosecutor
opposing DNA fishing expeditions.
.
.
One man's "fishing expedition" is another man's life.
There's no appeal from an execution
There's no appeal when your appeals are run out either.
Brilliant.
Sid9
2009-08-25 20:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete10016
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
On Aug 21, 12:02 am, Wilson Woods
Post by Wilson Woods
No. No one. There is no evidence of any innocent
convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit, nor is
there
any evidence of an
attempt to suppress evidence of incorrect
executions.
Ummm, do District Attorney offices automatically
agree to
things like
DNA testing in cases of condemned persons or must
they be
dragged into
courts?
DNA testing of what? There are plenty of examples of
the
prosecutor
opposing DNA fishing expeditions.
.
.
One man's "fishing expedition" is another man's life.
There's no appeal from an execution
There's no appeal when your appeals are run out either.
Brilliant.
He's a fucking genius!
Why he's almost as smart as bush,jr!
Wilson Woods
2009-08-25 20:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
Post by Pete10016
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Post by Pete10016
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Post by Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
On Aug 21, 12:02 am, Wilson Woods
Post by Wilson Woods
No. No one. There is no evidence of any innocent
convicts being
executed for crimes they didn't commit, nor is
there
any evidence of an
attempt to suppress evidence of incorrect
executions.
Ummm, do District Attorney offices automatically
agree to
things like
DNA testing in cases of condemned persons or must
they be
dragged into
courts?
DNA testing of what? There are plenty of examples of
the
prosecutor
opposing DNA fishing expeditions.
.
.
One man's "fishing expedition" is another man's life.
There's no appeal from an execution
There's no appeal when your appeals are run out either.
Brilliant.
He's a fucking genius!
Why he's almost as smart as bush,jr!
You aren't smart at all.
Wilson Woods
2009-08-20 07:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Hope
Aug 17th, 2009
Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing the
innocent.
And he's right, of course - there isn't.
Post by Harry Hope
This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution
of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is
later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.
Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question
unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based
on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.
So in Justice Scalia’s world, the law has no problem with sending an
innocent man to die.
No, that's not what he said, lying asshole. What he said is that the
convict's *claim* of "actual innocence" is not constitutionally
cognizable, and he is right.

Why do you hate the Constitution?
G***@Rightwing-Noggin.com
2009-08-20 17:46:58 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:41:42 -0700, Wilson Woods
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Harry Hope
Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing the
innocent.
And he's right, of course - there isn't.
So American ideals of "life" aren't really important to
conservatives

Nice of you to admit it in writing
John Q public
2009-08-21 21:27:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@Rightwing-Noggin.com
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:41:42 -0700, Wilson Woods
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Harry Hope
Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing the
innocent.
And he's right, of course - there isn't.
So American ideals of "life" aren't really important to
conservatives
Nice of you to admit it in writing
Not an effin clue do you have, the preservation of the constitution and
due process balances
the need for a fair and speedy trial and defendants rights along with
final resolution for crimes
against the public at large.
It is not perfect but, no system is perfect.
Life is the main premise in providing due process to begin with.
So your premise that they are unimportant isn't justifiable.
Your premise in toto is that there can be no crimes where absolute
punishment can be administered
because of a chance that person is innocent.
But then you would be subjecting the public to this concept when
justifiably many crimes are
heinous enough to warrant execution.
This is a very American ideal, actually its a core root Philosophy of
"America" and our founders.
You have not defined nor shown data where your argument falls within
"American Ideals" either
as an overwhelming opinion of its citizens or a core philosophy held by
its citizens.
This is a typical ploy by the left claiming moral authority where none
exists or to coopt it
for their own purposes.
China Blue Syndrome
2009-08-22 04:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Q public
Post by G***@Rightwing-Noggin.com
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:41:42 -0700, Wilson Woods
Post by Wilson Woods
Post by Harry Hope
Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing the
innocent.
And he's right, of course - there isn't.
So American ideals of "life" aren't really important to
conservatives
Nice of you to admit it in writing
Not an effin clue do you have, the preservation of the constitution and
due process balances
the need for a fair and speedy trial and defendants rights along with
final resolution for crimes
against the public at large.
It is not perfect but, no system is perfect.
What's more important? Obeying rules like an automaton? or the truth? What is
the purpose of the rules? Just a game for lawyers to play? Or to seek the truth?
You and Scalia have made yourselves clear: it's more important to secure the
careers of prosecutors than to find the truth.
--
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be,
Silver silverware - Where is the love? Reverend.
Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you, Sarah.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...