"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On 6 Mar 2005 10:28:29 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:


But the decision was a *conservative* one. It was handed down
by a conservative court. Their view of conservative and yours
don't coincide!

I wish you Lefties would make up your minds about the makup of
Scotus..if it decides your way...its a liberal court. If it decides
anyway but your way..its a Conservative court. Ive heard at least 200
differing opinions about this subject as to whether or not tis Lib
Conservative

It's roughly split. There have been some key 5:4 cases with this Court,
swinging either way.

That's not particularly bad, IMO, because the swing vote usually is not
ideological, but is based on either jurisprudence or a reasoned opinion. It
puts the ideologues on both sides to the test. There are ideologues on this
Court but its decisions are mostly non-ideological, as a result of the
split.


Old enough to do the crime, old enough to do the time (or lose your
life if you took another.) For the thumpers, it's "An eye for an eye."

I'm not entirely sure I agree with the decision myself. But it
is now the law of the land. It's a complicated question, and I
think if the experts disagree on this one then it probably makes
sense to not do anything irretrieveable. When the state kills
somebody, that's irretrievable. So puttem behind bars.

Jim

I rather think personally..that using current European standards of
justice to decide how US justice is handled...is a bit much. Christ
knows the last time anything good came out of European justice..was
Blackstone.

Although I haven't yet read the case, it appears that the righties are
misusing the comment about world standards. The Court, as I understand it,
did not refer to those standards as a matter of law. They were using it to
reinforce the definition of "unusual." And that definition didn't disagree
with the preponderance of evidence from the states, it only added some
definitional weight to it.

But I want to read the case myself before I argue the point. I'm only
commenting on the brief analyses we've seen in the press. As we've often
seen here, you have to look at the decision yourself to actually know what
happened.

--
Ed Huntress