He's both and always has been. If you listen to him for more than 10 minutes, you'll explode in laughter when you realize he thinks people are actually buying his loose shit.

I'm so weary of all the charlatains that have emerged from the woodwork during this tragedy of life. Count me among those who are uneasy about what the FL court decided in this case. There are too many conflicts of interest for me to have total confidence in the judge's original ruling. I don't really know what Terri Schiavo wanted and neither did her husband-in-name. But please, spare me the Randolph Terry crowd. I'm not a pro-choice, abortion on-demand fellow, but Terry and his ilk really irk me. Double goes for the grandstanding Jesse Jackson.

For ease of typing, can we just coin the term "huckstaniac" when referring to Keyes?

I heard Teri has a blog...

The core principle of "conservatism"---Burkean conservatism---is the respect for teh Rule of Law in ALL cases.

Keys is right intellectually on many issues. He's in uncharted waters on other issues. But one thing he cannot claim to be is a "conservative" while championing "civil disobedience" or other lawlessness.

John Brown wasn't conservative, even though he was on the right side of the moral issue.

Actually ace, you're sounding more like a "real" conservative than Keyes.

I'm not comfortable with the term "conservative."

I prefer "authoritian" or "fascist."

--arian.

You know what I meant.

Can't have "authoritarian" without "Aryan"! That's what my pappy always used to tell me.

Hob,
Not all cases. Burke supported the American revolution and American independence.

See-dub,

Burke supported American colonists until he saw the French Revolution.

Burke also supported Americans because they were being denied the traditional rights of Englishmen. Their civil disobedience stemmed from their collective (*gasp*) rights as English, not from their personal sense of aggrievement at the individual level.

Furthermore, after the fall of the ancien regime Burke saw the danger of Enlighttenment notions of perfectability and rationalism. The idea of mob riots would in every sense be condemned by Burke.

And ace, you don't like "conservative" b/c you're one of those Gonzo Republican chappies. That's good from an entertainment point of view, but definitely not "conservative."

well everyone is free to decide what my poltics are (if they care), but I self-identify as a "conservative." I was just kidding about not being comfortable with the label.

sorry for my lack of a /sarcasm tag ace

Interesting comment from one of the dissenting justices.

"Rather, we know from the sworn testimony of the jurors themselves that not even one of the jurors was influenced by these biblical passages to vote for the death penalty and that the biblical passages were not prejudicial to Harlan."

Also, if I have memorized scripture does that disqualify me from jury duty?

Hobbegoblin--I don't have either my Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies, nor my Reflections on the Revolution in France to hand, but I'll betcha there's nothing in the latter condemning the American Revolution.

I do feel comfortable pointing out that Burke drew some distinctions between the American and French Revolutions. The American, for example, was as you say an assertion of the rights guaranteed to Englishmen--but it was also an assertion of a Protestant frame of mind incompatible with tyranny. The French, on the other hand, was an atheist revolution against the very principles the American revolution asserted.

I agree that Jeb Bush, the U.S. Congress, et al. should not really have gotten involved here. At the same time, I have such a gut feeling that Michael Schiavo is a cad who is not carrying out Terri's wishes, but a sort of 'control to the death', that I called my congressman to vote pro-"Terri's Bill" and I am trying to beam into Jeb Bush's head to get him to abuse his powers, risk his position and act ...

At the same time, I think, as you say Ace, that anyone who can try to argue this from "the high ground" is just making a fool of himself, because getting the executive branch involved makes no sense really.

:( I can still hope though, can't I?

p.s. newsflash: Johnny Cochran - of OJ notoriety - died today from an inoperable brain tumor. Just heard it on Fox.

re: An argument can be made that he's kinda-sorta right, in the sense that police are generally under the authority of the executive... but they're also sort of under the authority of the courts, as any of us might find ourselves, when they are subject to a lawful (though moronic) court ruling.

In fact, there WAS a stand-off. The Dept of Children's and Family Services made an attempt, at Gov. Bush's direction, to seize Terri, escorted by agents of the Florida Dept of Law Enforcement. They found themselves facing the local Pinellas City Police and the Sheriff's Dept, who said that they were under orders from the court to not allow anyone in. Phone calls back here to Tallahassee were made, and the raid was called off, as it was decided that the City police and Sheriff's office DID have jurisdiction and they wanted to avoid a showdown between law enforcement officers.

I think they were hoping the police and deputies would be unaware of their jurisdictional responsibilities.

Jefferson sure had some choice words about Burke after the French Revolution.

see this review

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9311/reviews/henrie.html

and a great refresher article on Burke/Hayek

http://www.nhinet.org/raeder.htm

just for light reading ; )

This is EXACTLY the sort of post I had hoped to see from you, Ace.

Let me reiterate: this is such a relief to see coming from someone whose right-wing bona fides cannot in any way be questioned.

I feel exactly the same way, and I feel revolted by the borderline-megalomaniacal argumentation being advanced by certain extremist quarters of my team. Good see some basic fucking sense coming from you on this matter.

Keyes used to be spot on, and one of the best speakers I'd ever heard, but whoa! I've no clue what happened to the guy. Its like he figured no-one was paying attention to him when he was rational, so he decided to go nuts.
I sympathize with the idea of not obeying unjust laws/rulings and quite frankly consider the speed limit a bad suggestion, but without laws what do you defend yourself with? It would also be nice to see the law applied when the lefties flout it, but one miracle at a time.

Ace, I'm disagreeing with you hard on that Colorado thang. And I'm an Athiest (big time division). Maybe there's something going on in the Colorado Constitution I'm not getting, some procedural rule, but to the extent that Courts now feel the Constiution sanctions certain sources of morality (even in death penalty cases) as some violation of Church/State or Due Process or whatever, I say fuck em. Next they'll be saying 'Dianetics' is outta bounds.

If that's in the least what is going on (and I ain't about to read anything to find out, so screw you and the links you rode in on) then Keyes got my vote.

Maybe there's something going on in the Colorado Constitution I'm not getting, some procedural rule, but to the extent that Courts now feel the Constiution sanctions certain sources of morality (even in death penalty cases) as some violation of Church/State or Due Process or whatever, I say fuck em.

Would you feel the same if someone smuggled in an ACLU pamphlet arguing against the death penalty, and jurors used that to inform their decision-making?

Michael Schiavo authorized an autopsy to remove all doubts. I think it will confirm all the other tests....most of T Schiavos brain is gone, she was totally unsalvagable for any sort of recovery...even of swallowing or limited speech because all the neurons that do those functions are missing. They died in 1990, rotted, liquified away.

Which means all the claims of the Schindlers and certain lawyers, nurses involved in the Right to Life movement regarding Terri talking, interacting cognitively all the time with family members, responding emotionally to conversations ....have all been a crock of shit.

If it wasn't for the Schindlers using those lies to slime the husband, their psychotic behavior might be excused as simple grieving. The fact that doctors and lawyers from the RTL movement have been religiously motivated to lie to "Save Terri" betrays their professional duties, and is very worrisome to future doctors and lawyers who have strong religious beliefs yet wished to be looked at as credible professionals.

When deciding on a sentence (not guilt/innocence) where the law clearly gives the jury discretion, why not allow the bible, or torah, or ACLU pamphlet? Does the law spell out the exact requirements for determining whether the death penalty or life in prison sentence can be given? If it does then I guess I can understand the decision but as I'm not a lawyer these are things I wonder about.

Cedarford--8:25; Brewfan--8:28. No posts from either that I see all day.

You two are really the same person, aintcha?

Well, most juries are death preselected, meaning they swear they have no deep conviction oppostion to imposing the DP, so it's unlikely unless they lied under oath.

But, I don't see why the SOURCE of one's convicitons matter a whit. If one of my fellow jurors said Xenu spoke to them in a dream and said it was wrong/right, what the hell business is it of judge's to say otherwise? Do we belive they have some special power to look into our souls now and say you're beliefs convictions have an 'unjust' foundation? Really? What's a just foundtion? How do they determine what's just/unjust? Do only judge's have this special knowledge? Is there someplace I can go and learn to improve it or do you have to be born with it?

Perhaps most importantly, what is the in the Constitution that says this (aside from what Judges feel should be in the constitution). Again, as a conservative, I really like to pass amendments to say this stuff. Not just hope the judge's think, by their strong moral sentiments, that such a prohibition must be in there. (again, this is said wihtout readin a thing. Don't try to make me. Ain't gonna happen.)

Alan Keyes? I thought he was a great orator who made a lot of sense as long as the talk was one a few areas where he knows what he is talking about. But do a Q&A and watch him get into a rant on something he knows little about and whoah! Major loose shit catastrophe.

The guy bombed in Illinois and his rant urging Jeb Bush to destroy his political career and reputation by assuming dictatorial powers was so fucking delerious I wouldn't be surprised to hear 'ol Alan was taken away soon for DeTox or religious deprogramming.

That, Mr. See Dubya, was uncalled for. Especially if you would have scrolled up just a tiny bit. :(

D'Oh! Sorry.

If it was true, it would make an interesting movie. Something along the lines of Sybil, only scarier.

Ace, Keys is in fact a raving loon. Kind of like a terrible bizzaro world version of Howard Dean. Only we'd never make him head of the RNC. But I think the CSC really screwed up on commuting his sentence. If you read the article it says they brought the bible verses into the jury room during deliberations on the sentence, not the verdict. Are they going to start barring christians from juries becuase they might think about a sermon while deciding if someone whom they convict 'beyond a reasonable doubt' deserves to have the other cheek presented or be thrown into the slammer till the invisible choir sings? WTF Bob? Now if they had brought out the verses while deciding if someone was guilty, and quoted chapter and verse to defend or indict someone, then the CSC would have my thumbs up. But they're just being silly with this..and I hope someone has the guts to call 'em on it.

Keyes should never have run in Illinois, and he wouldn't have if the Chicago Tribune hadn't decided that as part of its totally fair, totally unbiased coverage, it was going to sue to have Jack Ryan's divorce records opened - they never did this for any other divorced candidate, incidentally. Given that his divorce was contentious and full of the usual contentious-divorce allegation-slinging by both sides, that about did it for him. Keyes was frickin' painful to watch. (Full disclosure: I did vote for him, though I wouldn't have done so if I thought he had a prayer of winning. It was sheer reluctance to vote for the anointed one, Barack Obama).

Dictators? Isn't there already a dictator there who has command of an armed force? An armed force currently keeping one Florida citizen imprisoned and threatening physical harm to anyone helping her?

You want to talk about precedent? What about the precedent of an unimpeachable county politician wielding more power than the governor of his state?

What about the precedent of classifying feeding and hydrating someone as "extraordinary life support measures?" What about the precedent of classifying spoons and cups as medical equipment? What about the precedent of fucked-up logic like "we'll pull the tube so she won't be on artificial life support... but we won't spoonfeed her because she might choke to death"?

But hey, we've got to obey the law, right? Whatever law is made, we've got to obey it. Just follow orders. Do what you're told.

Never forget, my ass. I'll be dust in a crematorium somewhere behind barbed wire by the time you realized what you're doing.

And this thread further exemplifies the massive problems with this case. This poor woman is suffering because she has become a political football for both sides. I don't know if she has exhibited the kind of responsiveness that her family has claimed or not- a lot of what I am reading is making me incline to think not. But this utter bullshit about the "euphoria" she's supposedly feeling as she is starved to death is every bit as bad. I respect life and oppose euthanasia but I would rather have seen her get a huge shot of morphine 2 weeks ago and gotten it over with than be tortured by the utter incompetents that supposedly have her best interests in mind. We should be able to do better than this.

Personally, I just think it is scarier than hell to realize we live in country where a judge could order my daughter(were she ever in a similar situation) to be starved to death merely because that is what her husband wants.

We have living will and advanced directive laws; these ought to have replaced the will of any family member - right of self determination. The absence of such a document should be construed as implied consent to continue treatment.

We have no way of knowing about the quality of Terri's life or mental status because neuroscience is so primitive.

AND while I can say I wouldn't want to live like that (whatever that is), I also wouldn't want to live blind, or paraplegic or homeless and destitute. No, I would not want that; but I would not say affirmatively that should any of those things ever happen to me that I would want to be euthanized.

This is also the big prolem with advanced directives and living wills. We don't really expect someone to know for sure what they would do if something GOOD happened to them, let alone something catastrophic.

Nonetheless, in the absence of an executed legal statement to the contrary, the default decision should be life.

By the way, the word "prolem" means the same as the word "problem" only without so much "b."

Don't you think Judge Greer should be held in contempt of Congress?

In addittion to that, is there any point when a corrupt ruling is so egregious that executive powers MUST supercede that of the Judicial, such as state sponsored murder?

If so, should force be used to enforce the executives orders?

I haven't totally made up my mind- but, we can never have another Terri.

That much is certain.

Let's all remember that that knight on a white horse, supposed to ride in and save Terri may four years from now be Barbara Boxer with Nancy Pelosi riding postilion on a Jackass.

You give the President today extraordinary powers, please remember that the President in 2008 might be Hillary Clinton with those same powers and precedent.

But Pat- these are extroidinary circumstances, is it not?

I do not fear giving the executivee the power to save a life of an innocent. Moreover- if a lib President did the same, I'd say God Bless him.

Let's not lose the forest thru the trees. The overwhelming injustice and saddening impotence of the legislative and executive branches, headed by the GOP, is going to lose us elections.

Only noble actions are respected, not empty promises or words.

If Jeb intervened-- you know it-- he'd be a national hero.

"And this thread further exemplifies the massive problems with this case. This poor woman is suffering because she has become a political football for both sides."

Bullshit. She's suffering because she's gone 12 days without food and water.

The fact that she's still drawing breath after 12 days without any nourishment (plus the fact that she's not on any medication, nor was she prior to the feeding tube removal) ought to tell any rational, intelligent person that she's as healthy as a frigging horse.

The people who are so eager to kill this poor woman don't seem to understand that she was perfectly fine before. She wasn't in any pain and she took obvious pleasure at interaction with her family members.

This is nothing more than state-mandated torture of someone, based on nothing more substantial than her estanged husband's claim that she told him ONCE, over fifteen years ago, that she wouldn't want to have tubes in her.

All the idiots who claim Congress, Jeb Bush, etc. are interferring and overreaching don't seem to understand that Judge Greer is the one who took it upon himself to order her starvation.

Greer could just have easily ruled that there was insufficient evidence of her desire to die while in THIS PARTICULAR STATE.

Put aside all the CAT scan bullshit and the medical opinions. There are dozens of doctors who have already stated they would testify both ways on this issue. That is the very definition of loose shit (or, to get technical, a lack of consensus).

The bottom line is there was enough evidence presented that Greer COULD HAVE ruled either way, and then written up the finding of facts to support either verdict.

Alright! Finally a man with hair on his chest. The sudden milquetoast was making me queezy.

Dogstar- Do you have a blog?

I want to link you if you do.

"Michael Schiavo authorized an autopsy to remove all doubts."

I wouldn't count on it. What does he know that's made him will ing to change his mind on this when he's already won the war? Who's going to do it? Who are they accountable to? How much pressure will be on them to make a determination that doesn't "rock the boat."

Will either side of the debate accept an answer that they don't agree with? ...I do know the answer to that one.

I thought there had to be an autopsy before someone was cremated regardless. Could be wrong about that, though.

I think The Onion had a really great take on Keyes back in February of 2000:

Alan Keyes Admits: 'I Just Enjoy Campaigning'

AIKEN, SC–Following a speech Monday at the Rotary Club of Aiken, two-time Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes admitted that he "just enjoy[s] campaigning." Said Keyes, a distant fourth-place finisher in the Feb. 1 New Hampshire primary: "It's a lot of fun. You get to fly around on airplanes, meet lots of nice people, and make speeches at big, fancy podiums. And sometimes, a reporter comes, and they put your picture in the paper. I only wish I could do it more than once every four years." Keyes, who has previously lost two U.S. Senate races, as well as the 1996 Republican presidential bid, added that "having your own bumper sticker is really neat."

"The Florida legislature, the elected representative body with the inarguable power to change the law to protect Terri, declined to do so."

That is, in fact, incorrect, Ace. They declined to act a second time, this time: back when I still worked for the Florida House a year ago, we passed and Jeb signed a state "Terri's Law" that our dear friends and masters, the Florida Supreme Court, held unconstitutional on their typically flimsiest of grounds. As with the 2000 election cases, the dissent by Justice Wells was brilliant.

Nope, no blog.

But I used to play a blogger on TV.

BTW, Dave J, pardon my laziness but why exactly was Terri's Law unconstitutional?

How right you are, Dave J. Isn't it fun living in this state? We have a totally GOP dominant Executive and Legislature, and are hamstrung by a totally liberal Supreme Court (with the exception of Wells, as you so brilliantly pointed out).

I think the Powerline boys had the most sobering point I've seen in a long time about this whole issue. Hinderaker basically said that the first time the Schindlers took this case to Judge Greer, they had no idea what they were facing in Felos. Mr. Schiavo had hired himself a really skilled lawyer (flush with cash at the time), while the Schindlers' first attorney was reallly in over her head.

Hindrocket's basic point was that once the initial case is ruled upon, the appelate process basically looks to the initial court ruling to find holes in the initial case. In his words (paraphrasing), the lower court's ruling is "set in concrete" and can only be undone if there's a problem with that ruling on procedural grounds. If the initial case was sound, it doesn't matter how many appeals, the first case will stand.

Now, being a cock, I certainly am no lawyer, but this seems to me to be some really strong reasoning. It sort of puts these numbers in perspective when people start rattling off how many times this case has been tried on appeal and the Schindlers have lost. They do that to prove that the vast majority of judges have agreed with the husband, when all those appeals mean is that the lower court case was argued fairly, and thus no grounds for appeal. But argued fairly does not mean that the Schindlers had their first, best shot.

Hey, here's a wild idea:

You know how, if they were hanging someone back in the old days, and the rope broke, they would give him a pass? I don't know if they would set him free or just make him do some jail time, but anyway...

All the "experts" say this starvation thing is supposed to take two weeks, maybe three max.

So if Terri is still drawing breath on the 21st day, what she we take it as a sign and plug the tube back in?

I think all the DeathGhouls, no matter how much they want her to croak, would agree that the authorities did all they could to try and carry out the wishes of the court.

Damn the loose shit...

Should read "..., what SAY we take it as a sign and plug the tube back in?"

Great line in this week's What Do You Think? section of The Onion. Kind of tenuously ties to the Colorado Supreme Court ruling:

Question:
The FDA is deciding whether they will allow non-prescription sales of the morning-after pill Plan B. What do you think?

Tenuously-linked answer:
"It says in the Bible that the morning-after pill is wrong. I believe the passage is Pharmaceuticals 3:16."

Hmmm...

Wonder what it says about herb?

"He argues, or rather asserts without much real evidence, that the ruling in question is 'unconstitutional.' And by doing so he commits the same error that millions of liberals and lefties and judges do: mistakenly believing that 'unconstitutional' means "something I don't personally agree with.'"

Article I, Section 2: "All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, ... No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability."

I agree with Alan Keyes here. It looks unconstitutional to me. I like your blog, but I think your criticism of Keyes is way, way off. As is the rest of this post.

"You are not allowed to begin hunting for your own evidence and arguments. Even if it's the Bible."

The sentence was thrown out. It had nothing to do with "evidence and arguments," the guy was already convicted.

Aren't evidence and arguments used to determine sentencing?

If a jury makes a decision, any decision, it must base that decision on only what it was provided within the framework of the court proceedings.

He sure is entertaining. I once sent a small donation to his presidential campaign just to keep him going bacause my kids would watch him smile and talk in paragraphs, and we'd just crack up. I have another friend, though, who refers to him as Marvin the Martian.

Yes, the rules of evidence and normal trial presentation of such still apply during the sentencing phase.

There is no problem with someone using his own moral compass -- including his belief in the teachings of the Bible -- to guide his verdict, of course.

The problem here is that jurors apparently began offering Biblical citations as an extraneous authority-- never presented (or challenged) in court -- and apparently at least one juror was swayed by this authority.

Now, it could be the judge is just a hypersensitive liberal who don't wan' none dat Jeebus talk in his courtroom.

Or it could be the case that the facts are has he found them to be, and that the introduction of extraneous authority and evidence in the jury room, and the persuasive power it had on one juror, tainted the sentencing decision unsalvagably.

Yes, during the penalty phase only the evidence presented in court can be treated by the jurors as evidence, and they are supposed to ignore facts and legal arguments(or "facts" and "legal" arguments if you prefer) from the media, friends, whatever. They then decide whether the prosecution has proved there were any aggravating factor, whether there were mitigating factors, and whether the aggravation outweighs the mitigation.

They are also supposed to "make a further individual moral assessment" about the sentence. I don't think it's crazy to say that many people's morals are influenced by the Bible. The court agrees, and basically says it's fine for people to be influenced by the Bible, they just can't read it during the trial.

Just wonder if the issue that they brought bibles into the room? If so, I still don't see it. Outside stuff during evidentiary phase, yeah. But at sentencing too? Why wouldn't it also be wrong to read their bibles at night when they go home (assuming not sequestered)? Is a court really going to say that if you're a juror you lose any right to read your book of worship at home? Congress can make no law abridging the free exercise of religion, can a court? (sincere question there) If they're allowed to read at home, can they recite verses when they get back? What if they knew them already, had em memorized, and just toss them out there in the room? Suppose that influences a juror?

Still haven't ready anything, might break down and do so, but I don't see how the court can draw any sort of logical rule here. Is the bright line no written things from outside? No mini-bible on key chains? (seen those) No 'unduly' (court determined) religious slogans on one's clothing? No unduly religious juror argumentation?

I'm assuming the CT. can't be saying that a jury's DP decisions based largely or in part on religous principle argumentation can't stand. But I wonder what the logic is here. (Ok dammit, I'll read the damn articles, opinion. I so hate facts getting in the way of my ranting.)

The CO Supreme Court's decision is here. From what I can tell, you can have the whole Bible memorized or available in your sequestered hotel room and base your entire decision on passages about gleaning wheat, you just can't bring the book itself into court. Because that's "extraneous information" of the exact same kind as using dictionary definitions in place of legal ones or asking Sean Hannity what he thinks about the sentence.

Look, let's say my wife gets arrested in Dearborn.

I don't want half the jurors bringing their Korans into the jury room. Or their Dianetics, for that matter.

I really don't want that. Like Ray says, if I need to check something out about whether God says it's OK for me to assent to the death penalty, I'll take care of that at home and not bring it in to the jury room and I'll expect my fellow citizens to observe the same rule.

BTW, I seem to remember a story like this recently where the defense tried to encourage the jury to think about bible verses about mercy. I originally thought these were the same story, but I can't find the other one now...

Read that opinion. Makes a little more sense, but there's an issue with it.

The rule is that 'improper extraneous information may not be consider by a jury, and the verdict to be overturned where such prejudice the defendant.

W/r/t prejudicing the D., the dissent argues with the majority over the facts, but I won't. I'll just assume that the verses read influenced a hold out to say kill em.

W/r/t "extraneousness," granted also. The lower court appeated to put the jurors up in hotel rooms with bibles and never instructed them theyt couldn't bring em in during sentencing. But certainly the info wasn't admitted during the evidentiary/guilt phase. And granted this isn't like info "Psst. Mr. Juror, here's my note saying my brother didn't do it, please consider this in sentencing. I wanted to take the stand during guilt phase, but..." That's extraneous. I could make some argument here about sentencing info, but skip it. I'll gice em this one too.

Improper? Here's the thing. The court cited two cases where the jury looked at a outside stuff, a dictionary and went on the internet. Problem though, is that both cases concerned guilt/evidentiary phase. Obviously wrong to use Funk and Wagnel defintion of burglary instead of the state of Colorado in deciding if D. committed a burglary. Same with using facts gleamed from internet. Furthermore, both juries were instructed not to do so.

My problem is that the court used those cases to say the Bible in the jury room during sentencing is 'improper' when never instructed otherwise. Why is it improper? That's the big question. The courts response? It just is.

Oh, thanks. It just is? Wow, law school's a wonderful thing. You just kinda learn this stuff about what's improper somehow. Just sort of pick it up out of the universe's vibration and feel it.

Seriously though, they seem to try and bootstap it's 'improperness' by saying it really could have afffected the jurors. Well no shit. But so what? Was it improper? It's not a dictionary during guilt phase, why is a bible, the one you provided with their hotel room, improper? Why is it improper when the CO law specifically instructs jurors to make an inidividual moral assessment? Why is the bible an improper source for helpig with such assessments? Don't bother asking the majority here. It is cause it is.

The same rule, rule 606, governs both guilt and sentencing phase and says what can be in the jury room. It uses the same language for what 's allowable in there,the same prohibition on 'impoper extraneous info' The maj.opinion just sort of waves their hands on why a bible is improper during serntencing.

In short, my guess is the majority just somehow feels justice shouldn't come down to bible verses. We're an advanced people and killing someone because a book says so is sort of backward and hillbillyish. I couldn't agree more. I would have voted to kill that fucker (raped an murdered one woman, paralyzed for life another that came to her rescue) just cause my barabarian sensibilites (evolution provided) say so. Next the court will wave their hands and say that's improper too. Pretty soon they'll decide the Death Penailty itself is too barbarian and wave their hands over some Constitutional clause and not bother to explain in much detail why it's now improper either. Some 'evolving sensibility' muttering or something.

Sorry to go so long. Gonna go on comment blackout for a week or so, thought I'd go out with a rant. Everything here I said, however, is subject to my changing my mind if my arguments start to look stupid or someone reading the damn opinion a little closer. But this is how it bugged me on my first go through.

Hob, thanks for the links--I've got the Hayek one bookmarked for later. I liked the review of Conor Cruise O'Brien, especially the part where he was like, "Burke--I am so into you. You are so f'n hot! OK, Jefferson was really into you, now I'm not so sure, I think he's really jealous."

Ray, good points. A jury of my peers includes my fellow god-botherers and barbarians, not just my fellow enlightened rationalists. If I can't let them decide the time, I shouldn't do the crime. See ya'round.

If a jury makes a decision, any decision, it must base that decision on only what it was provided within the framework of the court proceedings.

Man, that's exactly exactly opposite of what they tell you at jury duty. You must decide on the facts as presented and the law as the judge determines. But you must do so based upon the values and experience you bring to the jury.

I've served 5 times in NYC and this is what they told us each time. Oh, and there were jurors reading the Bible during deliberations both times the case went to the jury.

Keyes has slipped a cog lately, but let's agree that something's gone wrong in Florida. The SC won't honor the will of the citizens acting through the legislature. And the legislature is too freaking gay to push the issue.

See-Dubya - you from the Detroit area? I'm on the east side (I'm loling at the Dearborn remark.)

But - the left likes to bring in the slippery slope stuff ... are jurors going to be barred if they read a bible? I guess what is missing - is to what extent the jury "used" the bible. I do know that a guy got out of jury duty last time I served - he said (while holding up his bible) that he couldn't judge another. @@. What an actor.

Carin, I got family there, but I don't get back there much.

I heard yesterday that the defense had raised the issue of biblical mercy in their closing argument, and, to me, that should allow a discussion of the biblical ideas during the deliberations.....but I heard this on Free Republic so maybe it wasnt this case

I understand the ruling but it's a damn shame that the verdict had to be overturned

Guy didn't get cut no slack - da Boyz will probably execute him in a much messier way than the state would have.

Lawyers in the US are not held in high esteem, but when they put on the judges' robes they suddenly attain exaulted status.
We are supposed to take any crap that they dish out without any thought of non compliance.
Just tell us what to do gentlemen of the court and the US populace wll obey no matter if the law is unethical, immoral or unjust. We do not need a Congress or a President, we are RULED and controlled by the Judicial branch. It is stupid and we are fools for allowing this to go on.

I really like Allen Keyes, but he sometimes gets too caught up in emotion, like this.

I really don't understand the seperation of powers of the three branches of gov't, something I think I share with the executive branches, the legislatures, and the courts.

Hopefully all of this will spark a debate and it'll become clearer to all of us.

Watch yourself, Ace. You're wandering a bit off the plantation. And that can only mean one thing: hundredpercenter is contemplating de-linking you.

...Though to be fair to Hundredpercenter, it was that same kind of lesson that helped Job get his shit together.

I am very frightened for my family, my country, and my nation which was built on the sacrifices of others in the pursuit of noble and just causes.

There are many of you who advocate for that we must uphold the laws under ALL circumstances. I DISAGREE FULLY.

Many people accuse the Germans, the Pope, the Brits for not doing enough to stop Hitler and his Nazis as they amassed power (through laws) that killed 6 million Jews and political disidents and 40 million in World War II. Many Germans were just adhering and upholding the Nazi based laws.

At what point do corrupt judges, politicians, and authorities become so egregarious in their abuses and crimes?

Think about the scary world we live in the US and where we are going?

- Saying Prayer in Public is a crime (despite a Constitutional guarantee of Free Speech);
- Promoting Easter Bunnies, Santa Clause, Nativity Scenes, Jewish/Christian beliefs, etc. is a crime (despite a Constitutional guarantee of Free Religion);
- Speaking out against the culture of death is a "hate" crime (despite a Constitutional guarantee of Free Speech);
- Coming together in groups (Boy Scouts, Religious Charities) that promote the betterment of society is a crime (despite a Constitutional guarantee of Free Association);
- Marriage is being redefined/destroyed to promote perversions that result in injury and death in society (despite the male-female marriage and family being the building blocks for ensuring a stable and healthy society);

The Constitution was written as a contract between the people and the government they created to serve their needs. It contained guaranteed rights that were only to be altered through Amendments. All other rights not defined in the Constitution were to be left to the states (who were to have atonomy to experiment in government allowing them to succeed and fail on their own experiences seperately).

We need to face the fact that the Constitution no longer has any real meaning and is no longer being enforced. Judges/government officials are just making up stuff to fit their personal opinions (including good and bad opinions), not reflect the original intent in the law which was ratified by the States by super majority rule. Making up stuff to bend the Constitution to mean whatever kooky belief desired is clearly is a violation between the people and the government and is grounds for invalidating the contract.

I ask the question, at what point is supporting corrupt judges/government officials a form of enabling? Put this in the context of the German people who went along with the Nazis. Could and should the German people have stood up to the Nazi government and Nazi laws and prevented the extermination of 6 million Jews and political disidents and prevented 40 million people dying in World War II?

How far are we willing to go along with this corruption?

- When they arrest your family for having Christmas trees and Easter bunnies and wearing St. Patricks day green?
- When you are sent to jail when you don't want a transvestite or pedophile in your child's day care?
- When the crosses, jewish Stars of Davids, and religious names are removed from the graves of American servicemen and forefathers (relatives) who died defending our liberties and freedoms?
- When the government puts your disabled child to death for functioning body parts or because they cannot defend themselves in a court of law?

We need to begin to passively and peacefully resist now. Like the German people 70 years ago we have a choice to either go along with corruption or actively resist.

I for one do not believe everything is not okay in this United States of America. But that is just my opinion, what is yours?

I for one do not believe everything is not okay in this United States of America. But that is just my opinion, what is yours?

Well, one thing's for sure: you won't be reading about my opinion on Hundredpercenter's site...

Goldstein,

Bitter?

Unlike you to perseverate so.

lol

(and yes, Jeff, I just looked at the front page of the hp site and it is a bit dramatic. But I though "your kind" liked drama)

; P

Yes, drama. And commies. Don't forget commies.

I believe the defendant was the one who interjected the bible into the trial. Defense counsel plead for mercy for his client citing bible passages. The defendant encouraged this consideration and is now making hay off of it, that's not right. If he didn't want the bible in it, he should have left it out.