A federal appeals court has overturned the death sentence of Dastardly Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

[pknopp]

A country that kills can't expect it's citizens to be any better.

 

[harmonica]

Court overturns Boston Marathon bomber's death sentence

A federal appeals court Friday threw out Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s death sentence in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, saying the judge who oversaw the case did not adequately screen jurors for potential biases.

apnews.com

Muslim privilege, folks!

good call--they didn't stop the 2 whites being executed

 

[harmonica]

Court overturns Boston Marathon bomber's death sentence

A federal appeals court Friday threw out Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s death sentence in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, saying the judge who oversaw the case did not adequately screen jurors for potential biases.

apnews.com

Muslim privilege, folks!

Its been 7 years already since he committed his crime, that's too fucking long.

The character is laughing like hell.

No wonder why there are lynch mobs, people get sick and tired of waiting for justice to occur.


BTW, why didn't Obama do anything about this guy? The Tsarnaev brothers are from the Russian Federation, Uncle Pooty called Hussein about them. Gave the President the heads up on them, advised Obama that they were Bad News and he should keep an eye on them. Why didn't he listen?

....they went to a SCHOOL and killed CHILDREN!!!! .....they did the Moscow terror attack!!!!
..and it wasn't just 1 or 2 or a dozen terrorists--but MANY--WOMEN included
= this should tell you the Chechens/etc are jackass terrorists/trouble !!!!!!

...we had a Russian at our work...he was the nicest guy ever--the last person you would think of being ''harmful'''/violent/etc....so I asked him one time what he thought of the Chechens......he got quiet.....and after a few moments said:
kill them all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WOW ----!!

Beslan school siege - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[harmonica]

....out of a population of about 600,000--with just 1% Islam--it was the Islamists that committed the terror attack
..should have never allowed those jackasses into the US

 

[basquebromance]

We are a country of cowards. Crime pays in USA. A NATION OF WUSSES!

 

[basquebromance]

 

[basquebromance]

 

[whitehall]

The guy was complicit in the murder of a security officer and there was no doubt that he planned to maim and mutilate and kill innocent marathon runners as some sort of terrorist act. Tell me again about the sentencing judge and the jurors? I don't get it. I'm afraid that some left wing judge will find a loophole in the death sentence of Jihad Major Nadal and wheel his sorry ass off military death row.

 

[basquebromance]

The Boston Marathon bomber got his death penalty overturned and the highly trained SWAT team that caught him all lost their jobs due to defunding the police.

What the hell is going on in America?!?!

 

[basquebromance]

 

[MarcATL]

I am always disappointed when I read how outraged people are about the Constitution. I mean they must hate the Constitution. They must just detest it.

I say that because the Constitution was and should be a restraint on Government. It means the Government must dot the I and cross the T during criminal trials. Yet whenever that is shown not to happen people get mad because it isn’t justice in their minds. It is. But it is not what you think is just.

Now let me explain this in a way you can understand. Let’s say a cop is charged with murdering a man. The Jury is selected. Eleven of the twelve Jurors are members of the Black Panthers. You would object that the cop can’t get a fair trial. You would be furious that the cop is being lynched by the justice system. Yet when the Review finds a similar situation in the sentencing of the blithering idiot who bombed Boston you howl that it isn’t fair.

When asked, the Jurors said they thought he was guilty. Before the trial. The Judge was supposed to excuse them. He did not. The White Cop with the Black Panther jury wouldn’t get a fair trial either.

An impartial jury is a part of that process. For everyone. Including the cop who is charged with a crime. Not just for those who you like.

I see what you did there...and I LIKE it!

 

[SavannahMann]

You have nade my point from earlier... the system in this country is far too interested in Legal procedure, bureaucracy and red tape rather than JUSTICE. That’s why I refuse to call it a Justice System.

Well said

and the lowest part of the legal system is not ambulance chasing lawyers, and certainly not the cops.

which leaves activist lib judges who care more about criminals than the victims of crime

Ok, since you have no clue how the system is supposed to work, let me explain it for you.

The Judge is sort of like a Referee. His job is to make sure both sides are following the rules. The rules are not made up as they go, they were written down long before. The Judge like the Referee, calls it like they see it.

The Prosecutor is pushing for the victims. His job is to present the case, and show the Jury that the accused did commit the crime. And if he gets a Guilty Verdict, explain to the Jury why the punishment should be severe. As severe as the law, the rules, allow.

The Defense Council is representing the accused. His job is to try and get the accused a Not Guilty Verdict. This by the way, is exactly what the Founders had in mind when they set the system up.

The Judge penalizes whichever side is breaking the rules. If the Prosecution for example, violated the Brady Rule, the one that was broken with General Flynn, then the Judge is supposed to suppress the evidence touched by that. In other words, if your informant was really an illegal wiretap, and that was the basis of your Search Warrant, anything found during the Search would be inadmissible.

The search warrant is supposed to be based upon true statements. Which is why the FBI Lawyer is facing serious penalties, because the FBI Lawyer helped the FBI produce false and misleading evidence in support of a warrant.

The Judge is nothing more than a Referee. The Prosecution of the accused is supposed to be hard. It is designed to be hard to convict. The Founders had no intention of the courts becoming a rubber stamp for the Government. Part of the reason they broke away from England is that the English could arrest any colonial they wanted, and convict them of the crime, and sentence and even execute them with little or no evidence, and forget a trial by your peers. It is why these rules, the foundation of the courts, is written down in the Bill of Rights.

Beyond that, the Jury could find the individual not Guilty regardless if he actually did it. They have the right to decide the law is unjust, or applied unjustly.

So those Left Leaning Judges you detest, IMO, are not doing it well enough. They are not enforcing the rules strictly enough. They are not telling the Prosecutors that violations of the Brady Rule will be handled by finding everyone involved in Contempt of Court and holding them in jail for a month or more to think about it. Even when a cop steals documents out of a Lawyer's briefcase in full view of witnesses and on camera, the cop is only required to apologize. A violation of every single principle of Attorney Client Privilege. Illegal Search, no problem. Just apologize. Violating Attorney Client Privilege? No sweat. An apology will do nicely. That cop should have been tossed in the jail until the Judge got around to thinking about his case. Nope. Just an apology thanks.

If we accept that the Bill of Rights was intended to restrain Government, than I submit that the Judges are not doing enough, instead as you argue, doing too much.

 

[SavannahMann]

I am always disappointed when I read how outraged people are about the Constitution. I mean they must hate the Constitution. They must just detest it.

I say that because the Constitution was and should be a restraint on Government. It means the Government must dot the I and cross the T during criminal trials. Yet whenever that is shown not to happen people get mad because it isn’t justice in their minds. It is. But it is not what you think is just.

Now let me explain this in a way you can understand. Let’s say a cop is charged with murdering a man. The Jury is selected. Eleven of the twelve Jurors are members of the Black Panthers. You would object that the cop can’t get a fair trial. You would be furious that the cop is being lynched by the justice system. Yet when the Review finds a similar situation in the sentencing of the blithering idiot who bombed Boston you howl that it isn’t fair.

When asked, the Jurors said they thought he was guilty. Before the trial. The Judge was supposed to excuse them. He did not. The White Cop with the Black Panther jury wouldn’t get a fair trial either.

An impartial jury is a part of that process. For everyone. Including the cop who is charged with a crime. Not just for those who you like.

I see what you did there...and I LIKE it!

I just find it funny that the same people who are arguing that the McMichael's in Brunswick can't get a fair trial and are being lynched for killing a black man, argue that this guy didn't deserve a fair trial. I believe that their definition of fair depends on who is charged with the crime.

 

[Mac-7]

You have nade my point from earlier... the system in this country is far too interested in Legal procedure, bureaucracy and red tape rather than JUSTICE. That’s why I refuse to call it a Justice System.

Well said

and the lowest part of the legal system is not ambulance chasing lawyers, and certainly not the cops.

which leaves activist lib judges who care more about criminals than the victims of crime

Ok, since you have no clue how the system is supposed to work, let me explain it for you.

The Judge is sort of like a Referee. His job is to make sure both sides are following the rules. The rules are not made up as they go, they were written down long before. The Judge like the Referee, calls it like they see it.

The Prosecutor is pushing for the victims. His job is to present the case, and show the Jury that the accused did commit the crime. And if he gets a Guilty Verdict, explain to the Jury why the punishment should be severe. As severe as the law, the rules, allow.

The Defense Council is representing the accused. His job is to try and get the accused a Not Guilty Verdict. This by the way, is exactly what the Founders had in mind when they set the system up.

The Judge penalizes whichever side is breaking the rules. If the Prosecution for example, violated the Brady Rule, the one that was broken with General Flynn, then the Judge is supposed to suppress the evidence touched by that. In other words, if your informant was really an illegal wiretap, and that was the basis of your Search Warrant, anything found during the Search would be inadmissible.

The search warrant is supposed to be based upon true statements. Which is why the FBI Lawyer is facing serious penalties, because the FBI Lawyer helped the FBI produce false and misleading evidence in support of a warrant.

The Judge is nothing more than a Referee. The Prosecution of the accused is supposed to be hard. It is designed to be hard to convict. The Founders had no intention of the courts becoming a rubber stamp for the Government. Part of the reason they broke away from England is that the English could arrest any colonial they wanted, and convict them of the crime, and sentence and even execute them with little or no evidence, and forget a trial by your peers. It is why these rules, the foundation of the courts, is written down in the Bill of Rights.

Beyond that, the Jury could find the individual not Guilty regardless if he actually did it. They have the right to decide the law is unjust, or applied unjustly.

So those Left Leaning Judges you detest, IMO, are not doing it well enough. They are not enforcing the rules strictly enough. They are not telling the Prosecutors that violations of the Brady Rule will be handled by finding everyone involved in Contempt of Court and holding them in jail for a month or more to think about it. Even when a cop steals documents out of a Lawyer's briefcase in full view of witnesses and on camera, the cop is only required to apologize. A violation of every single principle of Attorney Client Privilege. Illegal Search, no problem. Just apologize. Violating Attorney Client Privilege? No sweat. An apology will do nicely. That cop should have been tossed in the jail until the Judge got around to thinking about his case. Nope. Just an apology thanks.

If we accept that the Bill of Rights was intended to restrain Government, than I submit that the Judges are not doing enough, instead as you argue, doing too much.

You are living in lib la la land

activist lib judges decide the outcome of cases in advance

they are the last hope for liberal activists who cant get things done through the legislative process

 

[SavannahMann]

You have nade my point from earlier... the system in this country is far too interested in Legal procedure, bureaucracy and red tape rather than JUSTICE. That’s why I refuse to call it a Justice System.

Well said

and the lowest part of the legal system is not ambulance chasing lawyers, and certainly not the cops.

which leaves activist lib judges who care more about criminals than the victims of crime

Ok, since you have no clue how the system is supposed to work, let me explain it for you.

The Judge is sort of like a Referee. His job is to make sure both sides are following the rules. The rules are not made up as they go, they were written down long before. The Judge like the Referee, calls it like they see it.

The Prosecutor is pushing for the victims. His job is to present the case, and show the Jury that the accused did commit the crime. And if he gets a Guilty Verdict, explain to the Jury why the punishment should be severe. As severe as the law, the rules, allow.

The Defense Council is representing the accused. His job is to try and get the accused a Not Guilty Verdict. This by the way, is exactly what the Founders had in mind when they set the system up.

The Judge penalizes whichever side is breaking the rules. If the Prosecution for example, violated the Brady Rule, the one that was broken with General Flynn, then the Judge is supposed to suppress the evidence touched by that. In other words, if your informant was really an illegal wiretap, and that was the basis of your Search Warrant, anything found during the Search would be inadmissible.

The search warrant is supposed to be based upon true statements. Which is why the FBI Lawyer is facing serious penalties, because the FBI Lawyer helped the FBI produce false and misleading evidence in support of a warrant.

The Judge is nothing more than a Referee. The Prosecution of the accused is supposed to be hard. It is designed to be hard to convict. The Founders had no intention of the courts becoming a rubber stamp for the Government. Part of the reason they broke away from England is that the English could arrest any colonial they wanted, and convict them of the crime, and sentence and even execute them with little or no evidence, and forget a trial by your peers. It is why these rules, the foundation of the courts, is written down in the Bill of Rights.

Beyond that, the Jury could find the individual not Guilty regardless if he actually did it. They have the right to decide the law is unjust, or applied unjustly.

So those Left Leaning Judges you detest, IMO, are not doing it well enough. They are not enforcing the rules strictly enough. They are not telling the Prosecutors that violations of the Brady Rule will be handled by finding everyone involved in Contempt of Court and holding them in jail for a month or more to think about it. Even when a cop steals documents out of a Lawyer's briefcase in full view of witnesses and on camera, the cop is only required to apologize. A violation of every single principle of Attorney Client Privilege. Illegal Search, no problem. Just apologize. Violating Attorney Client Privilege? No sweat. An apology will do nicely. That cop should have been tossed in the jail until the Judge got around to thinking about his case. Nope. Just an apology thanks.

If we accept that the Bill of Rights was intended to restrain Government, than I submit that the Judges are not doing enough, instead as you argue, doing too much.

You are living in lib la la land

activist lib judges decide the outcome of cases in advance

they are the last hope for liberal activists who cant get things done through the legislative process

I am living in la la land? Are you saying these things aren’t happening?



Not one of these liberal judges has found the National Security Letters to be unconstitutional. Not one.

The liberal Judges you denounce defer to the Agents and Agencies as to what the law says and means a hell of a lot of the time.

Agency rule deference

Connor Raso examines the impact of The Supreme Court's decision to curtail agency rule deference

www.brookings.edu

Blaming the referee for the calls is a little silly.

 

[Mac-7]

The liberal Judges you denounce defer to the Agents and Agencies as to what the law says and means a hell of a lot of the time.

The activist lib judges make up law that liberal legislators cannot pass

abortion rights is a good example of that

another is homosexuality and gay marriage

 

[SavannahMann]

The liberal Judges you denounce defer to the Agents and Agencies as to what the law says and means a hell of a lot of the time.

The activist lib judges make up law that liberal legislators cannot pass

abortion rights is a good example of that

another is homosexuality and gay marriage

Abortion. Jesus. In a thread about the Review overturning the Death Penalty you go for Abortion and Gay Marriage. Fine.

Abortion is a cudgel. It is something Republicans and Democrats wave to get their supporters into the voting booth. Neither of them want a change. If Abortion is through some miracle ruled unconstitutional the Republican Politicians would panic.

I am not going to argue the right with you. I am not going to point out that Polling consistently supports Abortion in limited situations. I am going to point out the truth that most women having abortions probably would not make good parents in the first place.

I am also going to point out that despite dozens of opportunities the Conservatives have always refused to overturn the Right to an Abortion. Why? Because the Judges you apparently admire as Conservative are smarter than you. If Abortion was banned except in cases of Rape, Incest, or danger to the Mother which anyone with three working brain cells admits is the maximum they could realistically hope for. The Judges know that ten minutes after the ruling went into effect the number of reported Rapes would skyrocket.

Not because the women were raped, but because they want an abortion. File a report and get the abortion. Then some poor slob is charged with a crime and forced to prove he did not do it. An extra quarter of a million men going to prison every year for a crime they did not commit seems excessive don’t you think?

Like Guns, you will never get the Genie back in the bottle.

Gay Marriage. Perhaps you have heard of the 14th Amendment. It is the Equal Protection clause. Anyone with the aforementioned three brain cells knew as soon as Conservatives proposed the idea of Civil Unions the issue of Gay Marriage was lost. It would violate the prohibition on separate but equal. The last nail was when one state made it legal.

My marriage certificate with my wife is valid in all fifty states. Just as my Birth Certificate and a death certificate is valid in all the states. And sure enough the first thing someone did was go to a state where it was legal, return home and then file for divorce. The only way for the States to avoid this was to get out of the marriage and divorce business. Surrendering power is not something anyone, including Conservatives does.

So long as there is an equal protection clause there will be Gay Marriage. Which is appropriate. Because all citizens should be afforded the same rights and privileges as any other citizen.

Now since you did not challenge the proven fact that the Judges are not doing their jobs holding the Police and Prosecutors responsible for breaking the rules I have to assume that is a part of the Judges actions you support. So how do you justify that?

 

[Mac-7]

I am not going to argue the right with you. I am not going to point out that Polling consistently supports Abortion in limited situations.

Sure.

to save the life of the mother only

not to protect her ability to party with no strings attached

 

[SavannahMann]

I am not going to argue the right with you. I am not going to point out that Polling consistently supports Abortion in limited situations.

Sure.

to save the life of the mother only

not to protect her ability to party with no strings attached

So you would force a woman who was impregnated by a rape to carry the child to term?

 

[Indeependent]

A country that kills can't expect it's citizens to be any better.

There's a difference between killing and murdering.