Wednesday, June 25, 2008
|
|
Still Waiting for an Obama Statement on Court Ruling
|
|
Posted by:
Amanda Carpenter at
2:28 PM
|
McCain is out with his. It says: "As a father, I believe there is no more sacred responsibility in American society than that of protecting the innocence of our children. I have spent over twenty-five years in Congress fighting for stronger criminal sentences for those who exploit and harm our children. Today’s Supreme Court ruling is an assault on law enforcement’s efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime. That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing."
How long do you think it will take for Obama to make a statement and how wishy-washy will it be? After all, he's got to back up his liberal justices who made the decision. He can draw on his own knowledge as a former constitutional law lecturer to explain their rationale.
Obama's scheduled for a press conference this afternoon. I do hope some intrepid reporter gets in a question about it. Then, again they may only get like, eight questions. Could be hard to work in.
Update: He was asked about it and is bucking the justices. He said: "I disagree with the decision. I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime, and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances, the death penalty is at least potentially applicable. That does not violate our constitution...“Had the Supreme Court said, ‘We want to constrain ability of states to do this to make sure that it's done in a careful and appropriate way,’ that would've been one thing, but it basically had a blanket prohibition and I disagree with that decision.”
Do our TH readers believe him?
|
|
"Amanda asks: Do our TH readers believe him?
My answer: No.
Obama is working his tail off to drive to the center."
This despite the fact that, as mentioned in my comment above, he said the same thing in a book that he wrote several years ago that he said now. He wasn't "driving to the center" then.
"First, generally, this seems like a state law enforcement matter."
That was one of Obama's objections too. Are you saying that you disagree with the fact that he agrees with you?
"he's still not one of us in the sense of the heart of America."
I rather think you don't mean the part about being from Illinois. What other ways are there to interpret this? |
|
Amanda asks: Do our TH readers believe him?
My answer: No.
Obama is working his tail off to drive to the center. This was an easy issue for Obama to run with the majority of those outraged by the decision. His far left supporters may whine, but they realize that it's all part of Obama's Trojan Horse strategy. Keep in mind, however, he's still not one of us in the sense of the heart of America.
I agree with Stoic Patriot that the death penalty may not make a lot of sense here. But my two caveats follows. First, generally, this seems like a state law enforcement matter. From what I've been reading, the Court's arguments aren't all that persuasive to take this policy decision away from the LA legislature. It may not be a wise use of resources for LA, but that's their decision. Second, LA should handle such cases as a correctional matter. That is, for the convict, into general population. We'll see how long he lasts.
Back to Obama, he gets no street cred on this one. He's driving too hard to the middle and looking far too inconsistent. He's way hard left. |
|
I happen to think that the death penalty for child rape is excessive here. As Hammurabi's Code goes, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." The poetic brilliance of the statement is that a punishment should never be excessively lenient or harsh. Sadly, the "cruel and unusual" clause of the Constitution prohibits solely those punishments that are exceedingly harsh rather than also those exceedingly lenient (which I perceive to be a much more rampant overall problem in the U.S.)
Put me down as someone who agrees with the Court in this instance on the basis of the law, and were it to come to a vote, would still not want to see the law changed to allow the death penalty in this instance... yet at the same time I'm also not someone who harbors passionate desire to come to the aid of this rapist.
People talk about rights, but it's always difficult to muster the sense that a man who isn't innocent of wrongdoing maintains any rights, particularly after such a gross offense. Nevertheless, I must defer to the sentiment of balance, even if that still means I harbor only the most apathetic sentiment in my desire to see this man not be executed. A continuous infliction of pain and suffering for the remainder of his days, in addition to his castration I might find suitable. |
|
to a child rapist there is nothing to compel them to not murder the child at the same time.
While child molestation and brutalizing children is horrendous and there is no justification for leniency in sentencing, at the possibility of hopefully saving a child's life wouldn't a sentence of life without the possibility of parole be better? |
|
of gang members who commit murder as an initiation into a gang NOT receiving the death penalty.
Does this guy really think no one has access to what he has done in the past?? |
|
|
I'd point out that McCain didn't manage to make his statement without including a little plug for himself: "As a father, ... I have spent over twenty-five years in Congress ..." |
|
"I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes," Obama said at a news conference. "I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable that that does not violate our Constitution."
Obama said that had the court "said we want to constrain the abilities of states to do this to make sure that it's done in a careful and appropriate way, that would have been one thing. But it basically had a blanket prohibition and I disagree with that decision."
Obama has long supported the death penalty while criticizing the way it is sometimes applied.
But Obama has never rejected the death penalty entirely. He supported death sentences for killing volunteers in community policing programs and for particularly cruel murders of elderly people.
"While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes - mass murder, the rape and murder of a child - so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment," he wrote in his book "The Audacity of Hope." |
|
Before Paul became a saint, he attacked the Christian Church. If he didn't actually have a hand in the martyrdom of St. Stephen, at the very least, he cheered for the murderers.
Let’s say Paul had been put to death as an accessory to murder before he converted. We would be without roughly half of the New Testament today.
God gives us life – God and who else? No one.
Only God can decide to give a life. Only God can decide the value of a life. Only God can decide when a given life has served His purpose, and should end.
Even God’s only Son realized this, and chose to go to Heaven by way of the Cross rather than have men or even angels use violence to help Him resist arrest (Matthew 26:50-53).
In politics, this means that the state must never, under any circumstances, either condone or practice the taking of a human life.
No abortion, no capital punishment, and no “mercy” killing.
There are evil people in the world, and God does give us the power to destroy – physically, at least – a life that He has bestowed. But He does not give us the power to avoid paying for it later.
I’m not sure where this puts me in today’s political spectrum. When I first spoke these thoughts out loud, about a dozen years ago, they got me branded as a loopy liberal moonbat, because I admire Jesus Christ for refusing to kill anyone, even His killers.
I see the question coming – do I know where such a course might get me, in the face of actual evil men today? Yes – it might get me killed, physically. Where Jesus went, I am ready to follow.
May God grant me the courage of these convictions
if He ever tests me.
|
|
I think anyone who thinks that the rape of a child isn't as bad as murder should actually talk to an adult victim of such a crime. These people never truly recover. Emotionally, many of them are crippled for life.
The thing is, a murderer can actually be reformed. A pedophile never can be. So if anyone is deserving of termination... |
|
Are this dumb. Aren't you people always complaining that liberals let emotions rule the courts? Isn't that why you're against hate crimes legislation? Because it doles out unequal punishment based on the motives of the perpetrators?
Then why is it ok to dole out the death penalty in cases that don't involve murder? Just because the victim tugs at your heartstrings? A rape is a rape and rape is not punishable by death. Only murder (and treason, a whole other discussion about proportionality) is punishable by death.
I'm seriously offended by people that park in handicap parking spots illegally. Does that mean it is morally justifiable to castrate them? No, punishment must be proportional to the crime. I don't care how much your twisted obsession with children clouds your judgement: rape of a minor is not a capital offense and is not punishable for death. Stop thinking with your emotions and start using your brains.
Besides, given the racist application of the law we all know that raping a black child would get you life and raping a white child would get you the death penalty nine times out ten. |
|
|
This is Mass state "mandatory sentencing" on child rape but still this is a poster boy for attorneys (& Dem politicians!!!) gone mad ---- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371344,00.html |
|
|
I guess I'm liberal on this issue. I think the death penality only should apply when death is involved. But Rape? I don't think so. I can go along with live in prison. I feel that if you tak a life, you forfeit your own life. In the case of rape, if no death is involved, then capital punishment should not apply. |
|
Kimberly:
Name those 10 issues.
But before doing so, returning to your statements on thread about the Jonah Goldberg piece, can you tell us about the RW (or GOP or GOParty of somethings) role is instances of eugenics. You're like a seagull that flies on to a beach, does its dirty business, and flies away.
If you haven't got any facts, pipe down. Or write some letters of support to your boy Senator Dodd. |
|
I'm just curious Amanda.
because I'd think it wouldn't be that hard to make a single point against it on the merit of the Justices arguments if it really was such an obviously wrong decision.
Interesting that McCain too, decided to sidestep any comment on the arguments made by the court and instead creates a pathetically weak straw-man to burn down |
|
I think on even grouds Kennedy makes some good points.
Especially regarding death penalty cases and their burden on the victim.
It is not at all evident that the child rape victim’s hurt is lessened when the law permits the death of the perpetrator. Capital cases require a long-term commitment by those who testify for the prosecution, especially when guilt and sentencing determinations are in multiple proceedings. In cases like this the key testimony is not just from the family but from the victim herself. During formative years of her adolescence, made all the more daunting for having to come to terms with the brutality of her experience, L. H. was required to discuss the case at length with law enforcement personnel. In a public trial she was required to recount once more all the details of the crime to a jury as the State pursued the death of her stepfather.... And in the end the State made L. H. a central figure in its decision to seek the death penalty, telling the jury in closing statements: "[L. H.] is asking you, asking you to set up a time and place when he dies." Tr. 121 (Aug. 26, 2003). Society’s desire to inflict the death penalty for child rape by enlisting the child victim to assist it over the course of years in asking for capital punishment forces a moral choice on the child, who is not of mature age to make that choice. The way the death penalty here involves the child victim in its enforcement can compromise a decent legal system; and this is but a subset of fundamental difficulties capital punishment can cause in the administration and enforcement of laws proscribing child rape. |
|
|
|