Thursday, June 26, 2008
Inside the mind of Liberal Supreme Court Justices
1.) The framers had no intention of enshrining an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pay no attention to the plain language of that pesky amendment. But women have a constitutional right to abortion. Nevermind where we found it.
2.) Evolved standards of justice and a broad consensus preclude the use of the death penalty to punish those who rape young children - even to the point of separating the cervix from the vaginal wall in an assault so gruesome and sadistic it requires hours of emergency surgery to correct. No, really. There's a consensus. Nevermind what elected representatives responsible to their constituents vote on. Ask any father of a young daughter if he'd be willing to shoot anyone who did that to his child. He'll tell you. You'll see. Honestly.
3.) The right of habeus corpus does not apply to servicemen and women in military courts, nor do those fighting for our country overseas have the right to access to civilian courts. They are subject to military courts martial, even including, in cases of general courts martial, the death penalty. Private Eddie Slovik, for example, was shot for desertion, on General Eisenhower's order, in 1945. Despite being a uniformed soldier and an American citizen, he received no civilian court review, and had no right to a habeus corpus proceeding. No court outside of the military reviewed his case. But clearly, a procedure good enough to put an American soldier to death is not good enough for terrorists fighting American troops and murdering civilians on foreign soil. American fighting men are not entitled to such rights. But Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Benalshibh are.
It's that evolved standard of decency. Ask anyone.
Splash, out
Jason
2.) Evolved standards of justice and a broad consensus preclude the use of the death penalty to punish those who rape young children - even to the point of separating the cervix from the vaginal wall in an assault so gruesome and sadistic it requires hours of emergency surgery to correct. No, really. There's a consensus. Nevermind what elected representatives responsible to their constituents vote on. Ask any father of a young daughter if he'd be willing to shoot anyone who did that to his child. He'll tell you. You'll see. Honestly.
3.) The right of habeus corpus does not apply to servicemen and women in military courts, nor do those fighting for our country overseas have the right to access to civilian courts. They are subject to military courts martial, even including, in cases of general courts martial, the death penalty. Private Eddie Slovik, for example, was shot for desertion, on General Eisenhower's order, in 1945. Despite being a uniformed soldier and an American citizen, he received no civilian court review, and had no right to a habeus corpus proceeding. No court outside of the military reviewed his case. But clearly, a procedure good enough to put an American soldier to death is not good enough for terrorists fighting American troops and murdering civilians on foreign soil. American fighting men are not entitled to such rights. But Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Benalshibh are.
It's that evolved standard of decency. Ask anyone.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
Post a Comment
