Supreme Court

[loangod]

This is yet another reason that Obama as President, along with majorities in the House and Senate, would be a complete and total disater with many ancient Judges on the bench.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo

[Stealersrule]

Originally Posted by loangod

This is yet another reason that Obama as President, along with majorities in the House and Senate, would be a complete and total disater with many ancient Judges on the bench.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/...tus_guantanamo

Part of the presidential power is being able to nominate judges who think like you to the Supreme Court. I think it was Franklen Roosevelt who tried to increase the size of the court to 12 judges so he could nominate four new judges who sided with him.

[Stealersrule]

Originally Posted by loangod

This is yet another reason that Obama as President, along with majorities in the House and Senate, would be a complete and total disater with many ancient Judges on the bench.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo

Being able to fill Supreme Court positions is a power source for the Executive Branch. FDR tried to chance the composition of the Supreme Court by changing it from 8 judges to 12. He would have been able to nominate four judges, and get the court to view his way with the judges he selected.

[Stealersrule]

The Supreme Court today, rejected the death penalty for child rapist's, when death is not involved. This was on a case from Louisanna. Did not say the rapist wouldn't accidentily fall victum to accidently being in the swamp with the gators (which by the way, protects the gators and is cheaper).

Question is, if the gator wants to rape the rapist, instead of eating him, does the court ruling protect the gator from death?

[loangod]

Originally Posted by Stealersrule

The Supreme Court today, rejected the death penalty for child rapist's, when death is not involved. This was on a case from Louisanna. Did not say the rapist wouldn't accidentily fall victum to accidently being in the swamp with the gators (which by the way, protects the gators and is cheaper).

Question is, if the gator wants to rape the rapist, instead of eating him, does the court ruling protect the gator from death?

Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in the Louisiana capital case was supported by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., wrote for the dissenters; he was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

[eoeleven]

Justice Anthony Kennedy leds the other four liberal idiots to stay and education of a defendent with the last name Kennedy

makes me want to puke

hurt a child DIE it should be mandatory

I am glad at least Alito wrote a desent

[loangod]

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first definitive pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

[eoeleven]

Originally Posted by loangod

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first definitive pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

a strong step into home defense

now if they can just get it legal to blow a robber to kingdom come for breaking into your house the crime rate everywhere will drop

if we do not let law abiding citizens have guns then we are basically giving criminals free reign