Obama on the Death Penalty for People Who Rape Children
By AndrewHyman Posted in 2008 — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion today in Kennedy v. Louisiana, banning capital punishment for someone who rapes a child. Senator Barack Obama said today that he disagrees with this SCOTUS decision by Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter.
But the latter three justices are Obama's model appointees, as he explained on May 8, 2008.
Wolf Blitzer: Are there members, uh Justices right now upon whom you would model...who do you like?
Barack Obama: Justice Breyer, Justice Ginsburg are very sensible judges. I think that Justice Souter, who was a Republican appointee, is a sensible judge.
And doubtless those three justices will say tomorrow that the Washington D.C. handgun ban is perfectly constitutional and consistent with the Second Amendment. Watch what they do, not what Obama says.
and we get a Kennedy or a Souter or a Warren all over again.
Obama does not say he disagrees with the decision because it is un-faithful to the Constitution. He says he opposes it because HE thinks it should be Ok for states to execute sexual abusers of children under narrow circumstances.
The Constitution is not about what Mike DeVine or Barack Obama thing the law OUGHT to be. Its about what We the People say it SHALL be!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
Which, unfortunately, many conservatives will not and do not get. I can honestly applaud Obama for disagreeing with the results of Kennedy v. Louisiana, but I must condemn him even more because he confirms his belief that the United States Constitution is nothing more than whatever he personally, or at least what a majority of nine lawyers in Washington, believes at a given moment. That is the real travesty.
It's like people who think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided because they think abortion is wrong. I agree that abortion is "wrong" but that has no bearing on whether the decision was wrongly decided or not. The decision was wrongly decided for the simple reason that it is not supported by the text and history of the Constitution.
But unfortunately, I think many Americans, conservatives as well as (most especially, since they still are the principal culprits these days) liberals, no longer understand the vital distinction between what they think should be and what the law, especially the United States Constitution, actually says.
More the pity.
*****
Unrepentant African-American nationalist, Unapologetic African-American conservative!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
for child rape to also support the death penalty for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature against children.
shouldn't you?
I would contend that physical harm to children is usually much more serious than sexual abuse.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
As a conservative, I say crimes against children are the most heinous and despicable. A child should be allowed a special innocence in life that an adult does not have. To rob a child of their innocence be it through aggravated assault or of a crime of a sexual nature are equally despicable. Take the women who drown their children-send them to the chair. Folks who beat their kids to death-chair. Rape-drawn, quartered, firing squad and guillotine. Understand if it was your little girl you'd feel the same. Get me?
"My worst fears had come to pass not in Georgia, but in Washington, D.C., where I was being pursued not by bigots in white robes but by left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony."-Clarence Thomas
Kill the terrorists.End the NewTone.Punch the hippies
consistency. One distinction I make is that with homocide, there is a 100% fact that a person is dead. As to non-homocides, what I may decide to do as a parent to the perpetrator, I would not necessarily favor the state do in all cases. Get me?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
that are worse than death! I can just imagine all those raped and otherwise tortured kids going through life - without a life.
Yes, like you I would be one of those parents and probably get the death penalty instead of the criminal...(and of course it would be upheld by our glorious Supreme Court!)...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Yes, there is such a thing as "A fate worse than death", and one vision of it is called life without parole in a maximum security prison where everyone knows you have "short eyes".
A few months of rubbing elbows (at least) with the scum of the earth, knowing that even THEY look down on you, and wondering when the next beating is going to happen, and most normal people would be longing for a quick, clean death.
I don't have a moral problem with the death penalty, but in this case I think that "killin' is too good for 'em".
_____________________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
I just read on Michelle's blog exactly what this man did to this 8 year old.....so unbelievable that a sane person would wonder if it was even true.
If they don't like the death penalty - - what about castration???? No on who does such a thing should ever be able to be on the street again. Sex for him should no longer be an option.
I think they actually tried some experiments with this, back in the 70's. My understanding is that these sorts of acts aren't about sex, they're about power and violence. Castration doesn't prevent them from wanting to cause pain.
__________________________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
Why do I say that? Read between the lines of his statement carefully:
Obama, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, said that had the court "said we want to constrain the abilities of states to do this to make sure that it's done in a careful and appropriate way, that would have been one thing. But it basically had a blanket prohibition and I disagree with that decision."
Obama has long supported the death penalty while criticizing the way it is sometimes applied.
As an Illinois legislator, he helped rewrite the state's death penalty system to guard against innocent people being sentenced to die. The new safeguards included requiring police to videotape interrogations and giving the state Supreme Court more power to overturn unjust decisions.
He also opposed legislation making it easier to impose the death penalty for murders committed as part of gang activity. Obama argued the language was too vague and could be abused by authorities.
Personally, I think he was lying through his teeth. He knew that if he opposed the death penalty outright, he'd be creamed in states where death penalty is practiced. Think about it.
It's just like DC gun control law. It didn't exactly outlaw handguns, just made it extremely impossible to purchase a handgun. Obama pays lip service to death penalty, but would prefer if it could be either made impossible to enforce or abolished altogether.
Do not take Obama's word at face value! Don't do that, because if you, then you're a born sucker, period. Obama is pretty clever playing with words, so it's up to us to take apart his words and what he really said in the first place.
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
make it easier to be enforceable? Wouldn't it be the better measure of his support of death penalty imposed in capital crime cases? Narrowing the definition of and constraints placed on death penalty only leads to further narrowing and eventually killing it by "strangling" it to "death." Ironic, isn't it?
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
That's what I take out of this.
------------
This is precisely the reason why liberals love activist judges. The politicians can say one thing to the voters but count on unelected activist judges to do what they really want. All the while they can place the blame on the judges who are not answerable to voters and while Democratic politicians pretend that they had no idea the judges would rule this way. It is the biggest shell game in federal government. Once again proves that Obama is just another old-style Democratic politician.
You're absolutely correct, but to be fair, both sides do this. GOP legislators moan to their constituents about judges allowing abortion & gay marriage, all the while furiously doing everything they can to avoid actually having to vote on those issues themselves. And will they fight for Originalist judges? Hah!
Strong rumor is W signed McCain-Feingold because he didn't want "campaign finance reform" being an issue in 2004, and Gonzo & Rove assured him there was no way SCOTUS would uphold it. Oops.
And if the Ledbetter discrimination case had gone the other way, Repubs (and, quietly, pro-business Dems) would've been shaking their heads about "activist judges" to business groups, like Dems were to labor unions and women's groups.
And both sides are guilty of writing extraordinarily complex, convoluted "laws" so they can later blame judges, whatever the result.
STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.
I may grant you that 50% (and perhaps more) of Republican pols rely on judges to make laws that they are uncomfortable with, BUT it is 99.9999% on the Democratic side. Democrats simply do not support the concept of originalism while Republicans my be wishy-washy on it. We would probably see even better statistics if we narrow the category to conservative Republicans. I will take the half sandwich (or even quarter) over no sandwich at all.
It does not matter even if 100% of Republicans play this game. Obama is not running as a typical Republican or even a typical Democrat. He is supposedly running as a "new" type of politician. He is NOT. He should be called on it every time he tries to play the old games.
While I can see why an action that does not kill anyone, or is not intended to kill anyone, can be said to not merit a death penalty, the Court's majority opinion leaves a LOT to be desired, that's for sure! OsiSpeaks[dot]com
With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.
Point one as you mentioned, Obama feels these are model justices; I am curious how many other decisions they penned he disagrees with? Is picking a SCOTUS justice like horseshoes, you just need to get it close? Not only is his judgment once again in question but so are his motives.
Point two; this is the same man who felt an infant born alive, as the result of a botched abortion, was not human. That lack of courage and humanity comes from the same person now opining on this decision. Quite the dichotomy; will the real Obama please stand up.
More than ever, we should now realize one of the single most important agenda items for our next President will be SCOTUS appointments. Clearly, this branch has stepped well beyond serving the people and aligning with its Constitutional duties.
Barack Obama, a man nobody really knows, will proliferate this judicial tyranny for years to come and damage our Republic beyond repair. It is time for common sense to overtake empty, fallacious, self serving sonorous speech.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
By the way, McCain's response to Kennedy v.Louisiana should be:
Unlike my opponent, I have never said that the Justices holding the majority opinion in Kennedy v. Louisiana were "sensible judges."
And to his credit, I have never heard him say anything regarding them that can be construed as saying he did regard them as so. And that includes comments regarding Justice Kennedy.
But alas ...
I can dream, can't I.
*****
Unrepentant African-American nationalist, Unapologetic African-American conservative!
even though obama wants liberal justices, i guess he figures you can't agree with everyone all the time...he can conceivably disagree with breyer and souter on the death penalty and agree with them just about all the rest of the time.
That have been watching Obama. Unfortunately it will be hard to make anything out of it that will penetrate to the undecideds.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777