Terri Schiavo's Bill

ShamMol · Mar 28, 2005

Batman said:
I hope you're not saying THE reason why the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that murderers under the age of 18 should not get the death penalty IS because advocates had the right to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The 5-4 decision said that it violates "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" while it acknowledged "the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty" which international opinion has nothing to do, (or should not)
with state laws.

So in this case the courts of the state of Missouri did not rule properly (perhaps because they did not take into account international opinion?) - then the U.S.S.C. applied their ruling to the other 18 states that had juvenile death penalty laws. Interesting.

no batman. i was going through the process of why a state level case made it all the way to the surpreme court without violating the states right. once again, you mistake everything i said.

"The reason that they decided that the murders who are underage should not be executed is because after it is appealed all the way to the states' supreme courts it then can go to the supreme court of the us. in terri's case, it was, through that exact process."

In fact, when quoting me, you left out the sentence that siad I was talking about the process...interesting...as you put it

Squawker · Mar 28, 2005

Sorry to interrupt you two, but the most disgusting thing I saw concerning this case was when the protesters brought retarded people in to be exposed to the public. There was one shot of a woman who looked terrified, and started to suck her thumb. They didn't know why they were there or what was going on. That was just cruel, IMO.

Batman · Mar 28, 2005

ShamMol said:
In fact, when quoting me, you left out the sentence that siad I was talking about the process...interesting...as you put it

I find the fact that you had nothing to say about the U.S.S.C. deciding state law based in part on "international opinion" even more interesting. But not really.

ShamMol · Mar 29, 2005

Batman said:
I find the fact that you had nothing to say about the U.S.S.C. deciding state law based in part on "international opinion" even more interesting. But not really.

actually, i have answered that quite clearly in the thread on activist judges, so if you want to post nonsense there too, be my guest. just a tidbit of what i posted there...ill do it here too...

they do decide the case based on united states law, but they include findings in international law. why do they do this would be more correct of a question. and the answer to that is that there is an emerging global network of law that has been established and has grown since international law first really existed-league of nations. this emerging global force is the reason they include it, and it is not just the liberals on the court who do, scalia even cites them (though we all know he doesn't do it personally, he has his law clerks do it, lol). the fact is this...the main decision comes from the interpretation of the constitution, while supporting evidence never used as the main basis is sometimes from international law.

Now after going through all this, the point I made earlier still remains. The Supreme court has...lets make this simple...two levels for deciding their decison. The first level is the constitutional issue. The second level is all the cases that support their finding, whether it be international or national. So, the one thing that matters is the constitution, but the other stuff brought in is just...filler...makes them feel like they are doing their job. So, let's reiterate... Constitution is what is important...just because they include other stuff doesn't mean that is the basis for their arguments....can't make it any simpler.

so please feel free to go debate that in the appropriate topic

Batman · Mar 29, 2005

ShamMol said:
actually, i have answered that quite clearly in the thread on activist judges, so if you want to post nonsense there too, be my guest.

Oh gee. Are you 'flaming' me?

ShamMol said:
so please feel free to go debate that in the appropriate topic

I have YOUR permission?

ShamMol · Mar 29, 2005

Batman said:
Oh gee. Are you 'flaming' me?

I have YOUR permission?

First off, let me say thanks for making those letters bold, really livens up the sentence. Second, you did post nonsense, so I pointed that out. Flaming is personally attacking, so yes I flamed you by calling what you posted nonsense, which it was because it had absolutely nothing to do with the thread at hand. You bring our little war to every single f-ing thread I am at. You don't need my permission to post an argument in a thread, but if you feel you do...you have my full...and you know, just go post...

Batman · Mar 29, 2005

ShamMol said:
First off, let me say thanks for making those letters bold, really livens up the sentence. Second, you did post nonsense, so I pointed that out. Flaming is personally attacking, so yes I flamed you by calling what you posted nonsense, which it was because it had absolutely nothing to do with the thread at hand. You bring our little war to every single f-ing thread I am at. You don't need my permission to post an argument in a thread, but if you feel you do...you have my full...and you know, just go post...

First off, we have no little war or any other type of relationship.

Second, the banter in this thread started by you responding to a statement I made earlier that was not even directed to you.

Third, "you have my full...and you know"
I know what you are and what you want. The answer is no. Stay off my website and never make remarks directed to my 14 year old son like that again.

No wonder why someone has to start a thread to tell you what you have to j*ck off to.

Strangelove · Mar 29, 2005

vauge said:
I seriously do not know what to believe. 20 times in court - that should say something in and of itself. Right? 5 times to the supreme court.

liberals claim this death is dignified

While I am not a liberal (at least I hope), this isssue is not black/white - liberal/conservative. There is nothing dignified about this issue.
QUOTE]

Let's just assess the facts:

1-She breathes on her own without assistance. Her heart and lungs work without mechanical assistance.

2-One part of her family wants to maintain what they see as life.

3-The other part of the family intends to deliberately withold the requirements for life.

4-Her 'husband' stands to benefit from her death financially.

Doctor Jack Kevorkian was imprisoned for a more humane process than what the husband is forcing on his mute wife.

Something is very wrong in this country when a hamster receives more compassion than a human being.

ShamMol · Mar 29, 2005

Third, "you have my full...and you know"
I know what you are and what you want. The answer is no. Stay off my website and never make remarks directed to my 14 year old son like that again.

what the hell is that? You now accuse me of being a pervert? lets see jack*ss...how is that about your fourteen year old son. second. im not gay or a pedofile, and third, FU*K YOU. Now that, my jackas* of a friend, is the way to start a war, congrats. you did it.

LEts see...I posted something in response to what you said, i respond to what you said, you responded with somethin off topic, i responded that you should post it in the right place, you respond with can i have your f-ing permission, and then i respond with the text below...

First off, let me say thanks for making those letters bold, really livens up the sentence. Second, you did post nonsense, so I pointed that out. Flaming is personally attacking, so yes I flamed you by calling what you posted nonsense, which it was because it had absolutely nothing to do with the thread at hand. You bring our little war to every single f-ing thread I am at. You don't need my permission to post an argument in a thread, but if you feel you do...you have my full...and you know, just go post...

then you respond with this...which i can't even clarify...

Third, "you have my full...and you know"
I know what you are and what you want. The answer is no. Stay off my website and never make remarks directed to my 14 year old son like that again.

No wonder why someone has to start a thread to tell you what you have to j*ck off to.

Congrats jacka*s. you just made a fool of yourself. you just accused me of something because i finally pointed out something that you don't want mentioned. you were wrong. so you accuse me of being a pedofile. brilliant holmes...brilliant.

Squawker · Mar 29, 2005

This became a bit too personal, so I moved some of the posts to the Basement. Keep it civil please. Posters who enter the Basement should do so at their own risk. Do not complain if you are offended. The wine is for Moderators and Administrators only, so keep ya mitts off it. Cheese is available, however you must raid the mouse traps.

ShamMol · Mar 29, 2005

Squawker said:
This became a bit too personal, so I moved some of the posts to the Basement. Keep it civil please. Posters who enter the Basement should do so at their own risk. Do not complain if you are offended. The wine is for Moderators and Administrators only, so keep ya mitts off it. Cheese is available, however you must raid the mouse traps.

personal? he ****ing called me a pedofile. f*ck you if you think that is personal!

Rouge · Mar 29, 2005

wow you banned my brother for complaining when called a pedofile, great job. shows what a great mod/admin you are.

Terri Schiavo's Bill

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through

Squawker

Professor

Batman

Active member

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through

Batman

Active member

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through

Batman

Active member

Strangelove

Member

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through

Squawker

Professor

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through

Rouge

Terri Schiavo's Bill

Only Way Round is Through

Professor

Active member

Only Way Round is Through

Active member

Only Way Round is Through

Active member

Member

Only Way Round is Through

Professor

Only Way Round is Through

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency