Lessons on committing professional suicideFollow

This guy could write a book...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371344,00.html

I can't even imagine what he was possibly trying to say, but somehow I would think that attacking child rape victoms would be something you learn in Law 101.

Regardless of what a Defense attorney would or would not do, as a politician he did the wrong thing and gravely misplayed the 'somebody think of the children angle' by using the first person and personal experience as his example.

Edited, Jun 25th 2008 12:51pm by bodhisattva

Yeah, he comes off as a super nice guy there.

I get his point but he did an exceptionally poor job of making it. Dipshit.

I like that Fox added this little gem. Hate to be on his staff today....

Reader Information: State Rep. James ***** is a Democrat representing the Third Bristol District, which includes the city of Taunton. ****** a 1973 graduate of Suffolk Law School, has been representing the district since 1993, and serves as chair of the House ethics committee. He can be reached by e-mailing or calling:

State House: 617-722-2040

District office: 508-824-7000

E-mail: Rep.JamesFagan@hou.state.ma.us




I doubt most people will even read this closely enough to figure out what the intention of his rant was, rather that just flying off the hinge.

You wouldn't believe the number of comments on my local news site decrying that decision.

Which is a horribly wrong reason to make a judicial decision at that level for at least two glaring reasons.

1. There's no constitutional basis here. Ok. Right to life. But since the death penalty in general isn't considered a violation of the constitution (not yet anyway), the concept of it being "cruel and unusual" is totally invalid. That's an assessment of the punishment all by itself. It either is, or isn't. This case should (can only?) rest on degrees. Somewhere between littering and murder there is a line at which we (the court) has to decide that the life of the criminal is more important then the crime they committed.

2. When addressing that degree issue, he's doing it wrong. You don't look at how many states have what laws to do this. That's a violation of states rights. Just because only one state has a particular law, doesn't make that law unconstitutional. The very concept is strange at its core. Also, this isn't a voting process here. Each state's citizens have the right to make that decision. His reasoning seems to be that if the citizens in other states don't like a law, then you can't pass it in your state. Again. That's incredibly flawed and flies in the face of some pretty basic structural assumptions of the US system of government.


Makes you wonder about that guy sometimes...

But Joph. Surely you see there's nothing unusual about death. It's a fallacious argument, like all liberal "logic". Heh.

Oh nos! We all have to change our opinion!

Edited, Jun 25th 2008 5:06pm by Jophiel

I actually agree with Obama??

And I wonder why it's only children ages 6 or 8, poor little 7 yr olds.

Obamalettes, please.

Which is inconsistent with the original concept of "cruel and unusual" punishment in the Constitution. That label is supposed to be universal and based on the form of punishment, regardless of the crime. Impalement is "cruel and unusual". Gouging out someone's eyes is also cruel and unusual. As it cutting off someone's hands, or breaking their fingers, or cutting them all over their body and covering them with salt. That's what the writers of the Constitution were talking about when they said that punishments could not be cruel and unusual.

They were *not* talking about whether the punishment fit the crime. That's a completely different aspect of judging a punishment. And the only original constitutional basis for arguing that aspect is that the constitution guarantees a "right to life". Thus, the death penalty is itself an imposition on that right and can (and should) be restricted to crimes deemed to justify it. Unfortunately, as the court has gotten more liberal, it's changed this definition. Only after the late 1970s does "cruel and usual" become applied in this manner (whether the punishment fits the crime). So it's somewhat circular to apply this new "invented" definition and use it as support to keep extending it even more.

I'm not at all suggesting that ruling against it on the right to life angle isn't valid all on it's own, in an "eye for an eye" kind of way. You can certainly make an argument that the only crime that can justify losing one's right to life would be one in which you took someone else's. I'm simply pointing out that the other reasons you listed just plain aren't valid arguments IMO.



Doesn't matter. The fact that he included it in his decision can (and will!) be used by future courts as precedent. He's basically saying that the US Supreme Court can rule on the constitutionality of a state law by looking at whether other states have made the same law or not and using that as a factor in their decision. IMO, that's absolutely wrong. Either the law is constitutional on its own merits or its not. This implies that the Supreme Court should take its cue from some kind of popular opinion aspect of a case.

I just think it's incredibly weak. It's an abrogation of responsibility. I also personally believe it's indicative of the growing lack of a strong sense of directionality and basis for constitutional decision. This is something that Conservatives have been arguing about for some time. As the Court has become less strict in terms of judging cases on the Constitution, and has begun to rule more frequently based on the political climate of the moment and what "seems right", they no longer have that firm foundation to operate on. When that happens, the Court will start looking outside itself and the document it's supposed to be operating on for justification on rulings. I believe that Kennedy's opinion reflects this.


There's just no reason for this court to be looking at how many states have a given law and using that number in any way shape or form when making a decision. But then, we can look back to cases like Roe v. Wade to see this pattern starting. This is just yet another in a progression that's essentially destroying the purpose of the court itself. It's no longer about whether some action violates the Constitution. And that's problematic...




/shrug It's what happens when you have an often adversarial process used to appoint justices. It's not uncommon to have the need for a compromise appointee result in someone a bit "flaky" like Kennedy sitting on the bench.

Which is inconsistent with the original concept of "cruel and unusual" punishment in the Constitution. That label is supposed to be universal and based on the form of punishment, regardless of the crime. Impalement is "cruel and unusual". Gouging out someone's eyes is also cruel and unusual. As it cutting off someone's hands, or breaking their fingers, or cutting them all over their body and covering them with salt. That's what the writers of the Constitution were talking about when they said that punishments could not be cruel and unusual.

Nope. Never meant that, Capitan. I find it interesting that you create framer intent from whole cloth based on what you'd like to be true. It's funny. The word "unusual" isn't there by mistake. Any extreme disparity in sanction for a crime between a state and the other states qualifies as "unusual". Life in prison for shoplifting, or two years in prison for littering, anything that's out of proportion qualifies.

No one's arguing this isn't the case, save you. The conservative justices merely argued that death wasn't out of proportion here. They're without question constitutionally wrong. You should be happy, this is good news for you. Now the GOP can claim Obama would appoint more justices who are easy on eeeevil child rapists since he supports the decision.

Oh wait!

Ahahahahaha. Ahh, poor Capitan. Not only is your state going to go 70/30 for Obama, the gay marrige referendum is going turn out so many more voters who might stay home in a safe blue state obliterating any chance of McCain even coming close.