The inept and corrupt federal government

[P@triot]

No. Really. You're not. Here are a few of your disgusting and repulsive statements over the past few days...

"**** Justice Scalia. I hope he's burning in hell"

"Ronald Reagan was a senile old **** who screamed at a wall"

"Thomas Jefferson fucked the shit out of his slave"

Dude....those are the comments of an immature asshole. It why nobody here likes you in the virtual world and why nobody can stand you in the real world.

No, those are observations on truly bad men who did bad things. I've also said bad things about Hitler and Attila the Hun.

Why was Antonin Scalia a "bad man who has done bad things"?

Because he upheld the Constitution and Joey hates the Constitution. True story.

 

[JoeB131]

Why was Antonin Scalia a "bad man who has done bad things"?

Restricted voting rights.
Restricted access for minorities
Supported the Death Penalty
Supported keeping people in prison even after they were found innocent
Help put Bush in the White House

 

[JoeB131]

I didn't say that, they submitted the information to the IRS, the IRS targeted them based on nothing but the name. Nothing illegal in the application was found. The IRS delayed their process purposely because of apparent political affiliation. They were targeted and profiled base solely on politics. It is wrong. You are a phony liberal. Real liberals would never have put up with this.

Well, yes, their NAME indicated that they weren't what they said they were.

Their NAME indicated their intention to spend money on political activity, which is NOT what that sort of exemption is in the tax code for.

You kind of like when an organization calls itself the North American Man-Boy Love Association, we might have some suspicion they are up to no good.

 

[JoeB131]

No. Really. You're not. Here are a few of your disgusting and repulsive statements over the past few days...

"**** Justice Scalia. I hope he's burning in hell"

"Ronald Reagan was a senile old **** who screamed at a wall"

"Thomas Jefferson fucked the shit out of his slave"

Dude....those are the comments of an immature asshole. It why nobody here likes you in the virtual world and why nobody can stand you in the real world.

No, those are observations on truly bad men who did bad things. I've also said bad things about Hitler and Attila the Hun.

Why was Antonin Scalia a "bad man who has done bad things"?

Because he upheld the Constitution and Joey hates the Constitution. True story.

Poodle, take your beating like a man.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Why was Antonin Scalia a "bad man who has done bad things"?

Restricted voting rights.
Restricted access for minorities
Supported the Death Penalty
Supported keeping people in prison even after they were found innocent
Help put Bush in the White House

That's ******* ridiculous... care to elaborate?

 

[P@triot]

Why was Antonin Scalia a "bad man who has done bad things"?

Restricted voting rights.
Restricted access for minorities
Supported the Death Penalty
Supported keeping people in prison even after they were found innocent
Help put Bush in the White House

That's ******* ridiculous... care to elaborate?

Trust me brother....block him. He lies about everything and then cries to the mods if you tell the truth. He doesn't like the truth.

 

[Papageorgio]

I didn't say that, they submitted the information to the IRS, the IRS targeted them based on nothing but the name. Nothing illegal in the application was found. The IRS delayed their process purposely because of apparent political affiliation. They were targeted and profiled base solely on politics. It is wrong. You are a phony liberal. Real liberals would never have put up with this.

Well, yes, their NAME indicated that they weren't what they said they were.

Their NAME indicated their intention to spend money on political activity, which is NOT what that sort of exemption is in the tax code for.

You kind of like when an organization calls itself the North American Man-Boy Love Association, we might have some suspicion they are up to no good.

You had no clue or evidence what they were or were not doing, and it wasn't the fact that they were denied, but they were delayed for years without getting due process. Spin it all you want but the IRS was in trouble for it and they weren't allowed to delay for no reason. And several IRS servants were let go.

 

[JoeB131]

That's ******* ridiculous... care to elaborate?

You mean you want me to repost the whole court record? No, not really.

Here's a good one, though.

Justice Scalia Says Executing The Innocent Doesn't Violate The Constitution

Two North Carolina men were exonerated earlier this week due to new DNA evidence after spending 30 years in prison, where one was awaiting the death penalty, highlighting the reality that innocent men can end up on death row.

Back in 1994 conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia voted against a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the case of one of those men, Henry McCollum. That man became North Carolina's longest-serving death row inmate after he and his half-brother Leon Brown were convicted of raping and killing an 11-year-old girl.

This news brings to mind Scalia's insistence that the Supreme Court has never ruled the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who later convinces a court of his innocence, as Slate points out.

"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent," Scalia wrote in a 2009 dissent of the Court's order for a federal trial court in Georgia to consider the case of death row inmate Troy Davis. "Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged 'actual innocence' is constitutionally cognizable."

sorry, what a ******* douchebag.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

That's ******* ridiculous... care to elaborate?

You mean you want me to repost the whole court record? No, not really.

Here's a good one, though.

Justice Scalia Says Executing The Innocent Doesn't Violate The Constitution

Two North Carolina men were exonerated earlier this week due to new DNA evidence after spending 30 years in prison, where one was awaiting the death penalty, highlighting the reality that innocent men can end up on death row.

Back in 1994 conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia voted against a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the case of one of those men, Henry McCollum. That man became North Carolina's longest-serving death row inmate after he and his half-brother Leon Brown were convicted of raping and killing an 11-year-old girl.

This news brings to mind Scalia's insistence that the Supreme Court has never ruled the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who later convinces a court of his innocence, as Slate points out.

"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent," Scalia wrote in a 2009 dissent of the Court's order for a federal trial court in Georgia to consider the case of death row inmate Troy Davis. "Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged 'actual innocence' is constitutionally cognizable."

sorry, what a ******* douchebag.

"but he was right when he said the Supreme Court has never ruled whether an individual’s 'actual innocence' necessitates the involvement of a federal court in a state conviction."

From your own citation... you need to disconnect your sense of righteousness from constitutionality.

 

[JoeB131]

"but he was right when he said the Supreme Court has never ruled whether an individual’s 'actual innocence' necessitates the involvement of a federal court in a state conviction."

From your own citation... you need to disconnect your sense of righteousness from constitutionality.

I think right and wrong trumps the constitution.

The constitution used to allow slavery. That didn't make it right.

Neither is executing an innocent man, just because they checked all the boxes and went through all the motions.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

"but he was right when he said the Supreme Court has never ruled whether an individual’s 'actual innocence' necessitates the involvement of a federal court in a state conviction."

From your own citation... you need to disconnect your sense of righteousness from constitutionality.

I think right and wrong trumps the constitution.

The constitution used to allow slavery. That didn't make it right.

Neither is executing an innocent man, just because they checked all the boxes and went through all the motions.

That's why you're wrong... change the law. You haven't the basic understanding of the very basics of our system. Judges don't decide right and wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

That's why your wrong... change the law. You haven't the basic understanding of the very basics of our system. Judges don't decide right or wrong.

Guy, we don't need to change the law. Judges are there for a reason. It's why we don't let machines do this, plug in a logical program, and let them run.

A human being is supposed to be there to say, "Hey, this guy didn't do it!" and put a stop to the thing.

 

[JoeB131]

It's why we call it a "Justice System" and not a "Law System".

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

That's why your wrong... change the law. You haven't the basic understanding of the very basics of our system. Judges don't decide right or wrong.

Guy, we don't need to change the law. Judges are there for a reason. It's why we don't let machines do this, plug in a logical program, and let them run.

A human being is supposed to be there to say, "Hey, this guy didn't do it!" and put a stop to the thing.

Then we don't need Congress... just let politically appointed judges make the rules. Looka, I don't support the death penalty just for these reasons. Human intervention allows for error. Take the death penalty out of the equation.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's why we call it a "Justice System" and not a "Law System".

Oh come on...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So now judges are "justice" judges...

 

[JoeB131]

Then we don't need Congress... just let politically appointed judges make the rules. Looka, I don't support the death penalty just for these reasons. Human intervention allows for error. Take the death penalty out of the equation.

I'd love to, but that's not the point here. the problem is that convictions are incredibly hard to undo in general. that's why we need judges who can make compassionate and just decisions.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Then we don't need Congress... just let politically appointed judges make the rules. Looka, I don't support the death penalty just for these reasons. Human intervention allows for error. Take the death penalty out of the equation.

I'd love to, but that's not the point here. the problem is that convictions are incredibly hard to undo in general. that's why we need judges who can make compassionate and just decisions.

Not their job... their job is to rule according to the law. What if a judge were sympathetic to a man having sex with an underage person. OK, we agree that's ridiculous, but, what if? Do you really want him injecting his personal beliefs into this decision?

 

[JoeB131]

Not their job... their job is to rule according to the law. What if a judge were sympathetic to a man having sex with an underage person. OK, we agree that's ridiculous, but, what if? Do you really want him injecting his personal beliefs into this decision?

Not the same thing. We are talking about facts, not opinions.

the question before Scalia was can they still put an innocent man to death even after evidence of his innocence came to light. He was of the opinion that you could.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Not their job... their job is to rule according to the law. What if a judge were sympathetic to a man having sex with an underage person. OK, we agree that's ridiculous, but, what if? Do you really want him injecting his personal beliefs into this decision?

Not the same thing. We are talking about facts, not opinions.

the question before Scalia was can they still put an innocent man to death even after evidence of his innocence came to light. He was of the opinion that you could.

Nope... matter of law. He ruled, correctly, the SCOTUS had no standing to intercede in a matter of state law.