Europe Calls on World to Abolish Death Penalty

[Secretblend]

What do you mean "present, not future?"

The Supreme Court decision isn't something that any President can change. The Supreme Court makes the final decision. It doesn't matter who the President is.

The only way that the Presidents can influence Supreme Court decisions is by whom they select as judges. Even then, the judges have to be approved by Congress.

The judges are in their positions for life, so Presidents don't even have the power to say "when" they can pick a new judge.

The bold as shown is not entirely true, Congress can pass new bill that if signed by President will become law overriding what the Court says.

The job of Supreme Court is to interpret what the law says as it is written.

 

[Reba]

The link, you posted is present which mean is President Bush is still around at present time which is different as I posted the article because of Obama. Its about the future... If he wins at election this November.

It doesn't matter who is President next. The Supreme Court decisions continue regardless of who is President.

Yes, the president CAN influence Supreme Court/Congress's decision if he want to.

How so? That would be unconstitutional, illegal, and unethical, if even possible. How could a President influence a Supreme Court Justice?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

The bold as shown is not entirely true, Congress can pass new bill that if signed by President will become law overriding what the Court says.

The job of Supreme Court is to interpret what the law says as it is written.

Yes, that's right.

 

[Foxrac]

The bold as shown is not entirely true, Congress can pass new bill that if signed by President will become law overriding what the Court says.

The job of Supreme Court is to interpret what the law says as it is written.

Well, they overturned down the gun ban in DC and death penalty for child rapist.

 

[Reba]

The bold as shown is not entirely true, Congress can pass new bill that if signed by President will become law overriding what the Court says.

The job of Supreme Court is to interpret what the law says as it is written.

And then the Supreme Court would find the new law also unconstitutional and strike it down also. What would be the point in passing similar laws that would constantly be struck down? That doesn't make sense.

If the new law changes a provision to fit the Supreme Court's interpretation, then that could be passed and upheld. But it would have to include that change. It couldn't be the same exact law.

 

[Secretblend]

Well, they overturned down the gun ban in DC and death penalty for child rapist.

That is where the problem is in courts today. They can "interpret" however they want. Instead of reading as it says, they allow their bias to interfer with what it is actually saying. However, Congress and President can make new law making it actually clearer and changing how Court interprets the law.

 

[Reba]

Well, they overturned down the gun ban in DC and death penalty for child rapist.

Yes, because the Supreme Court decision overrides the city, state, or district laws. The DC gun ban was a district law, and the child rapist death penalty was a state law.

 

[Secretblend]

And then the Supreme Court would find the new law also unconstitutional and strike it down also. What would be the point in passing similar laws that would constantly be struck down? That doesn't make sense.

If the new law changes a provision to fit the Supreme Court's interpretation, then that could be passed and upheld. But it would have to include that change. It couldn't be the same exact law.

That is why our government is not perfect. It may be best government ever invented on earth but still is not perfect cause it's run by human beings and human beings always have bias

 

[Reba]

Yes, that's right.

And it is that interpretation that is binding. The President can't change or ignore it.

 

[Reba]

That is why our government is not perfect. It may be best government ever invented on earth but still is not perfect cause it's run by human beings and human beings always have bias

That's right. Our Founding Fathers understood the weaknesses of humans, so that's why they set up the Constitution with checks and balances.

 

[Foxrac]

That is where the problem is in courts today. They can "interpret" however they want. Instead of reading as it says, they allow their bias to interfer with what it is actually saying. However, Congress and President can make new law making it actually clearer and changing how Court interprets the law.

I believe that supreme court did interpret the 2nd Amendment about gun ban issue in DC then they overturned it, 2nd Amendment is allows citizens to have rights to own gun at home for defense.

For death penalty on child rapist, I think they are interpret on 8th Amendment then overturned it.

 

[Reba]

I believe that supreme court did interpret the 2nd Amendment about gun ban issue in DC then they overturned it, 2nd Amendment is allows citizens to have rights to own gun at home for defense.

Who overturned what?

District of Columbia banned private citizen handgun ownership.
Supreme Court's recent decision struck down the ban.
Supreme Court upheld the 2nd Amendment.

The Supreme Court's decision has not been overturned. No one can "overturn" a Supreme Court decision except the Supreme Court itself in a later case.

Unless I missed something in this morning's news, the Supreme Court decision stands.

For death penalty on child rapist, I think they are interpret on 8th Amendment then overturned it.

Are you saying that the Supreme Court overturned it's own decision?

Please clarify who "they" are in each instance.

 

[Foxrac]

1) Who overturned what?

District of Columbia banned private citizen handgun ownership.
Supreme Court's recent decision struck down the ban.
Supreme Court upheld the 2nd Amendment.

The Supreme Court's decision has not been overturned. No one can "overturn" a Supreme Court decision except the Supreme Court itself in a later case.

Unless I missed something in this morning's news, the Supreme Court decision stands.



Are you saying that the Supreme Court overturned it's own decision?

2) Please clarify who "they" are in each instance.

1) I doesn't say someone overturn the supreme court's decision, I means supreme court overturned gun ban because of 2nd Amendment.

2) They = supreme court

 

[Foxrac]

Ugh, I don't appreciate to anyone who take judge on my english.

My english sucks.

 

[Jiro]

That is why our government is not perfect. It may be best government ever invented on earth but still is not perfect cause it's run by human beings and human beings always have bias

That's right. Our Founding Fathers understood the weaknesses of humans, so that's why they set up the Constitution with checks and balances.

yes flawed but still better than most governments.

Before: Gay marriage is illegal
Now: it is legal (well just California)

Before: Black people have no rights
Now: they do now

list goes on... you won't find something like this in other countries.

 

[Reba]

1) I doesn't say someone overturn the supreme court's decision, I means supreme court overturned gun ban because of 2nd Amendment.

2) They = supreme court

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Reba]

Ugh, I don't appreciate to anyone who take judge on my english.

My english sucks.

I'm not judging your English. Everyone makes the "who - they" mistake at some time in a conversation (receiving and transmitting). Some things that are clear in a face-to-face conversation become cloudy when we make quick posts.

I'd rather be sure of the information than misunderstand it.

If I post something that is not clear, please feel free to ask for clarification.

 

[Foxrac]

I'm not judging your English. Everyone makes the "who - they" mistake at some time in a conversation (receiving and transmitting). Some things that are clear in a face-to-face conversation become cloudy when we make quick posts.

I'd rather be sure of the information than misunderstand it.

If I post something that is not clear, please feel free to ask for clarification.

Ok, got it, thanks.

Sometime, I feel like that way.

 

[web730]

Soft punishment?

life imprisonment is not soft punishment.

Rehabilitatation in prison do help to reduce the crimes when they get out of prison.

Soft punishment means weak punishment.

How can we rehabilitate criminals who are sent to the prisons for their life instead of those executions?

Also don't forget it's expensive to feed and shelter a criminal at a prison.... averages $30K a year per criminal in the USA.

E.U. spoils those murder criminals unlike we do in the USA except some states. So it doesn't help to use the softer punishment that what I rather call it.

 

[dead money]

i only skimmed through this thread.....

But im all for the death penalty. In fact the justice system is too weak as it is, already in my opionion. Do you really think a guy who kidnaps young children or a man who kills for personal pleasure is afraid of a fucking needle called lethal injection? Theres absolutly nothing lethal about it. You get it, go to sleep and wake up. But lets say you reinstate the firing squad, public hanging, the guilotine. Motherfuckers gonna think twice before they do something drastic, thats all i know. Its either that or build a fence around Detroit, Michigan and call it a national jail since its a shithole anyway. Let the criminals kill each other off to survive "Escape from LA" style. Yeah i might fear being imposed a sentence knowing THOSE consequences over a stupid ass shot most states tend to give death row immates these days. Pretty sad if you ask me.