Mom Kills 2 Children

[Annie]

Found not guilty by reason of insanity. She can petition for release in 180 days. :nine:

http://www.theomahachannel.com/news/4149854/detail.html

 

[Shattered]

*scowl*

Nuke the bitch. She'll "sane up" real quick after a walk down the runway of death.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Found not guilty by reason of insanity. She can petition for release in 180 days. :nine:

Not that she'll be released.

I never really saw how a dangerous insane person was somehow less guilty than a dangerous sane one.

A

 

[no1tovote4]

Not that she'll be released.

I never really saw how a dangerous insane person was somehow less guilty than a dangerous sane one.

A

For me the biggest question is why do they give somebody with bad aim less of a penalty. IMO Attempted murder should be the same as Murder.

 

[Shattered]

Not that she'll be released.

I never really saw how a dangerous insane person was somehow less guilty than a dangerous sane one.

A

I'll be damned. Something we can agree on.

 

[CivilLiberty]

I'll be damned. Something we can agree on.

This one is a no-brainer.


A

 

[Shattered]

This one is a no-brainer.


A

Well, given some of your previous statements, one would have to wonder.

(Sorry.. Couldn't resist that one - it just fell right out of my fingers...) :halo:

 

[dilloduck]

Not that she'll be released.

I never really saw how a dangerous insane person was somehow less guilty than a dangerous sane one.

A

It's sorta crazy isn't. Men make laws that defy reason, common sense and nature. Wish we could elect the dudes instead of having them appointed. This process takes the will of the people too far out of the loop. There are lots of activist judges who make arbitrary or political decisions just as this

 

[CivilLiberty]

It's sorta crazy isn't. Men make laws that defy reason, common sense and nature. Wish we could elect the dudes instead of having them appointed. This process takes the will of the people too far out of the loop. There are lots of activist judges who make arbitrary or political decisions just as this

We *do* elect the men that make the laws. The laws of most states have the exception for insanity AS LAW written by the lawmakers that were elected. The judges here are following the law as written.

This "activist judges" thing is a red herring. If you want to make a change to the law, it can be done. For instance, if you really want to overturn Roe v Wade, then you can get your elected representatives to pass a constitutional amendment (that grants rights at conception or some such), that can then be ratified by the elected representatives in 3/4 of the states. Until then, the LAW as embodied by the constitution and it's amendments, written by elected representatives and ratified by the elected representatives of the states is that no state shall prohibit it.



Regards,


Andy

 

[Johnney]

spider crawling across your hand = drown your children... i can almost see that.
disgusting

 

[CivilLiberty]

spider crawling across your hand = drown your children... i can almost see that.
disgusting

In a nation of 290,000,000, there's bound to be a few aberrations.

At the risk of sounding like a eugenicist, keep them out of the gene pool, please.



A

 

[Avatar4321]

We *do* elect the men that make the laws. The laws of most states have the exception for insanity AS LAW written by the lawmakers that were elected. The judges here are following the law as written.

This "activist judges" thing is a red herring. If you want to make a change to the law, it can be done. For instance, if you really want to overturn Roe v Wade, then you can get your elected representatives to pass a constitutional amendment (that grants rights at conception or some such), that can then be ratified by the elected representatives in 3/4 of the states. Until then, the LAW as embodied by the constitution and it's amendments, written by elected representatives and ratified by the elected representatives of the states is that no state shall prohibit it.

You dont get it do you. Its the Abortionists who should be passing laws to permit abortion. not the pro lifers who are trying to pass laws to prevent it. The Abortionists bypassed the American Electorate through the activists judges you want to pretend dont exist. But libs will do whatever they can to prevent the American people from actually voting on such an issue because they will lose.

 

[CivilLiberty]

You dont get it do you. Its the Abortionists who should be passing laws to permit abortion. not the pro lifers who are trying to pass laws to prevent it. The Abortionists bypassed the American Electorate through the activists judges you want to pretend dont exist. But libs will do whatever they can to prevent the American people from actually voting on such an issue because they will lose.

You don't need to pass a law to permit what is an inalienable right of a woman.


A

 

[no1tovote4]

You don't need to pass a law to permit what is an inalienable right of a woman.


A

No, you need 5 judges to agree with your perspective. Just as getting 5 judges to agree with the other perspective can turn the whole thing around. The whole constitutional amendment thing is one that may not be necessary if GW is able to put a strict cosntitutionalist on the SCOTUS and they choose to hear another case on Abortion.

The Roe V. Wade, and Doe v. Bolton decisions (both decisions were handed down together and read at the same time, the Roe decision got the spotlight, while Roe v. Wade legalized abortions in first trimester, the Doe decision legalized abortions to the end of the Pregnancy) were based on false testimony by a doctor who later admitted he lied in order to legalize abortion. He even stated that the end justified the means.

And I disagree that it is the inalienable right of anybody to kill somebody because of how young they are or how early their development is.

The whole idea of activist judges began here. Laws were written that disallowed abortion, these judges ruled that the Right to Privacy overrode those laws and changed it in one fell swoop. This was not a case of Judicial Activism, it was simply a ruling as the SCOTUS was designed for.

Another ruling that is believed to be activist was the busing ruling (judge ruled that schools were not equal and in order to make it equal wrote a law to have children bused from one district to another), not made by the SCOTUS, where instead of requiring the Legislature to write law that allowed for the equalizing of the schools the Judge took it upon himself to write the law itself and to specify how the new law was to be implemented. In this case I believe he overstepped his bounds. It is one thing to knock down a law based on the perception of rights, another to specify a new law without regard to the Legislature, this was Judicial Activism at its finest. The Judge should have recognized that his power did not include the writing of law and specifically ruled on the Constitutionality of the current law and specified that the Legislature must change the law in order to fit in with Constitutionality, rather than taking it on himself.