I guess the only time you are not too dangerous for the conservatives on this Supreme Court is when you have engaged in domestic violence. Then you get an assault rifle and your freedom.
Yes, I do know there’s been a conviction here, but their convenient oversight of the questionable nature of the conviction really cuts the other way. We all know how many judges are former prosecutors or even if not, pretty much rubber stamp whatever they request (unless you are Aileen Cannon overseeing a Trump case). For a conviction to be overturned in Texas - well, a reasonable lawyer can see that forest through the trees.
So another dead prisoner , yee-haw Texas. Depressing.
I respect the liberal justices enough to think they have somehow reasonably convinced themselves that not saying anything (even when they dissent publicly, and that is fairly rare, repeatedly it is without comment) helps in the long run.
I don't know exactly why. I question the value of it. But, I'm not there.
Sotomayor previously managed to drop a few more statements in death penalty cases. If the conservatives are so touchy that the two more outspoken liberals (Jackson more outspoken than Breyer so far) can't drop a statement of concern or even dissent in a death penalty case without them using it to change the law or something to the worse (in a liberal's view), it's kind of stinks.
But, I guess we sort of know that. Still, I'll repeat , granting it's not my call, it's to me a bad policy. This is not a trivial case. Sometimes, these last shot cases are. The death penalty might always be bad; not all last minute appeals have much going for them.
I think it would be appropriate always to have at least a brief statement when a life is involved. But, in a case like this, it should be truly provided. I have been told Chris Geidner generally agrees. So, just stating my mantra here. I think it matters.
"You are being hung not because you stole a horse, but so that horses will not be stolen."
Comparing Sinagpore's drug policies to the USA's I am about this close to going from "The USA is too racist and corrupt for capital punishment to" "So was Singapore, until Lee Kwan Yew cam along. Ah, that Yew tree...
It sounds as though his case was reviewed multiple times, and his guilt has been well established in more than one court room. Even the Supreme Court denied each of his requests. His claims have been reviewed, and denied.
Some crimes demand that there be capital punishment, thankfully it seems as though this man is reaping what he sowed.
His "guilt" is not at issue. And, the denial of the certificate of appealability actually means that, no, the Supreme Court did not review his claim. The Supreme Court was only reviewing whether a certificate of appealability should have been granted.
Finally, this is a very weak case for "some crimes demand that there be capital punishment." If you think that a 19-year-old with mental health issues that required commitment killing someone requires an execution 32 years later, well, I don't know what to tell you.
If he truly got exactly the same, that means the government murdered him.
Some here, including Chris Geidner, don't like when the government breaks the law. Murder is breaking the law.
Even if killing him was necessary and proper, I can see feeling bad doing it if it means we are exactly like a murderer. I wouldn't say the government is murdering him.
I would say it was breaking the law by doing it. That makes me feel bad. It also makes me feel bad killing people, especially when it seems gratutious.
My moral compass works just fine, as opposed to yours. If the man is guilty, that's all that matters. Endless appeals are an attempt to delay justice. This is plain to see. Again, two courts found him guilty. His appeals have been repeatedly denied. He is not suffering any injustice. Mental illness does not undo evil actions. Many argued Hitler had mental problems,, should we view his crimes as any less evil?
You pretend to be an "intellectual" by getting hung up on what the lawyers defending that man claim. You sound like you're the type of person who would gladly agree with letting a terrorist walk free over some technicality. The Supreme Court justices are much more qualified than any of us to make a call in the matter, and they have. Now the man has received justice.
It is amazing how you leftists immediately resort to insults.
I'm unsure what this means. A tiny number of murderers (even in Texas) are executed. The Supreme Court and state law generally narrows things. Mere guilt is not enough.
Mental illness is one thing that mitigates guilt in our law. It is a factor (not the only one) used here to judge that he is not worthy of execution. He is being punished. He has been in prison for over 30 years so far. This is "justice" in the eyes of many.
The analysis flagged the injustices, including executing him using a standard of dangerousness (the reason he was sentenced to die, not his mere guilt) that the courts have deemed invalid. There was also a problem flagged with how the jury determined he warranted death. A juror misunderstood the instructions.
Yes, like many people, there is a belief here the courts were wrong. And, this specific case, not every single one, had specific red flags. No name calling here. No appeals to Hitler or pure abolitionism. This specific case has issues.
I guess the only time you are not too dangerous for the conservatives on this Supreme Court is when you have engaged in domestic violence. Then you get an assault rifle and your freedom.
Yes, I do know there’s been a conviction here, but their convenient oversight of the questionable nature of the conviction really cuts the other way. We all know how many judges are former prosecutors or even if not, pretty much rubber stamp whatever they request (unless you are Aileen Cannon overseeing a Trump case). For a conviction to be overturned in Texas - well, a reasonable lawyer can see that forest through the trees.
So another dead prisoner , yee-haw Texas. Depressing.
I respect the liberal justices enough to think they have somehow reasonably convinced themselves that not saying anything (even when they dissent publicly, and that is fairly rare, repeatedly it is without comment) helps in the long run.
I don't know exactly why. I question the value of it. But, I'm not there.
Sotomayor previously managed to drop a few more statements in death penalty cases. If the conservatives are so touchy that the two more outspoken liberals (Jackson more outspoken than Breyer so far) can't drop a statement of concern or even dissent in a death penalty case without them using it to change the law or something to the worse (in a liberal's view), it's kind of stinks.
But, I guess we sort of know that. Still, I'll repeat , granting it's not my call, it's to me a bad policy. This is not a trivial case. Sometimes, these last shot cases are. The death penalty might always be bad; not all last minute appeals have much going for them.
I think it would be appropriate always to have at least a brief statement when a life is involved. But, in a case like this, it should be truly provided. I have been told Chris Geidner generally agrees. So, just stating my mantra here. I think it matters.
"You are being hung not because you stole a horse, but so that horses will not be stolen."
Comparing Sinagpore's drug policies to the USA's I am about this close to going from "The USA is too racist and corrupt for capital punishment to" "So was Singapore, until Lee Kwan Yew cam along. Ah, that Yew tree...
It sounds as though his case was reviewed multiple times, and his guilt has been well established in more than one court room. Even the Supreme Court denied each of his requests. His claims have been reviewed, and denied.
Some crimes demand that there be capital punishment, thankfully it seems as though this man is reaping what he sowed.
His "guilt" is not at issue. And, the denial of the certificate of appealability actually means that, no, the Supreme Court did not review his claim. The Supreme Court was only reviewing whether a certificate of appealability should have been granted.
Finally, this is a very weak case for "some crimes demand that there be capital punishment." If you think that a 19-year-old with mental health issues that required commitment killing someone requires an execution 32 years later, well, I don't know what to tell you.
His guilt is not in issue, hence no need for scare quotes.
The guy apparently murdered someone. I should feel oh-so badly when he gets exactly what he meted out to someone else, because?
If he truly got exactly the same, that means the government murdered him.
Some here, including Chris Geidner, don't like when the government breaks the law. Murder is breaking the law.
Even if killing him was necessary and proper, I can see feeling bad doing it if it means we are exactly like a murderer. I wouldn't say the government is murdering him.
I would say it was breaking the law by doing it. That makes me feel bad. It also makes me feel bad killing people, especially when it seems gratutious.
Obviously, YMMV.
Yeah, but suppose your mom was the victim? also, what about private vengeance instead of public law?
Your reading comprehension sucks🤣🤡
One comprehends only that which one wishes to comprehend.
Well, that's certainly true but this guy is just trolling. He's an "independent thinker" 🤣
My moral compass works just fine, as opposed to yours. If the man is guilty, that's all that matters. Endless appeals are an attempt to delay justice. This is plain to see. Again, two courts found him guilty. His appeals have been repeatedly denied. He is not suffering any injustice. Mental illness does not undo evil actions. Many argued Hitler had mental problems,, should we view his crimes as any less evil?
You pretend to be an "intellectual" by getting hung up on what the lawyers defending that man claim. You sound like you're the type of person who would gladly agree with letting a terrorist walk free over some technicality. The Supreme Court justices are much more qualified than any of us to make a call in the matter, and they have. Now the man has received justice.
It is amazing how you leftists immediately resort to insults.
"If the man is guilty, that's all that matters."
I'm unsure what this means. A tiny number of murderers (even in Texas) are executed. The Supreme Court and state law generally narrows things. Mere guilt is not enough.
Mental illness is one thing that mitigates guilt in our law. It is a factor (not the only one) used here to judge that he is not worthy of execution. He is being punished. He has been in prison for over 30 years so far. This is "justice" in the eyes of many.
The analysis flagged the injustices, including executing him using a standard of dangerousness (the reason he was sentenced to die, not his mere guilt) that the courts have deemed invalid. There was also a problem flagged with how the jury determined he warranted death. A juror misunderstood the instructions.
Yes, like many people, there is a belief here the courts were wrong. And, this specific case, not every single one, had specific red flags. No name calling here. No appeals to Hitler or pure abolitionism. This specific case has issues.
He was executed but I'll pretend we are talking about when this post was first published.
YGWYFD?