but it has been getting more and more unusual as the years have gone by.
Except for the inconvenient fact that this isn't true. Between 1990 and 2003, 123 of 3,599 death sentences, or 3.4%, were given to individuals who committed crimes before reaching age 18. By contrast, only 2.1% of those sentenced to death between 1982 and 1988 committed the crimes when they were under 18. As for actual executions of under-18 offenders, they constituted 2.4% of the total executions since 1973. Thus, the numbers of under-18 offenders subjected to the death penalty, though low compared with adults, have either held steady or slightly increased. Furthermore, additional states have explicitly allowed for such punishment in recent years.
The court has previously held that in determining the meaning of "unusual," that this determination should be based on whether or not there exists a "national consensus" on the matter, as determined by "objective indicia that reflect the public attitude toward a given sanction"-namely, "statutes passed by society's elected representatives." How can the view of less than a simple majority of the states that permit capital punishment be a national consensus? How are the views of foreign governments relevant to this question?
Don't presume that because I disagree with the court, that I don't know what I'm talking about.
I also meant to reply, that my answer is somewhat of a cop-out because of course the vaguest laws that the courts have to deal with are the Constitutional provisions - the very ones they cannot invalidate. In this case, I would argue that the text of the document should be considered first; then, the clear intent of the original writers of the provision. And that's it. If it still cannot be resolved, then the court should probably defer to the legislature and allow the challenged law to stand.
Perhaps this is their intent, but I suspect your rationale might be the more common one. I truly have no idea.
This is never their intent. Trust me. Federal courts will flame you brutally if you attempt to suggest that the SCOTUS approves of a lower court ruling simply because they declined to take a case that challenged it. Denial of certiori means nothing.
If at any point you want states to be able to override the federal constitution, then what's the point of a federal constitution?
Where did I ever say that? I absolutely agree the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That said - where it is silent, that silence should NOT be presumed to be space for federal judges to fill up with their own concepts of good and bad policy. For example, the Constitution states nowhere that prisoners must be over the age of 18 to be eligbile for execution. But *bing*! Like magic, that's suddenly mandated by the Constitution, because a majority of the SCOTUS thinks that it's a good idea. THAT, I disagree with.
The APA study is interesting, though there were things that gave me pause; for example, the finding that children raised by lesbian households tend to adopt more feminine characteristics. I guess I want to be convinced that being raised by a gay couple is substantially preferrable to being raised by a single parent/guardian.
you make it sound like the gays are just banging down you door so they can have sex in front of your grandmother. "We're here, we're queer, we're high on poppers and X and looking for you to fist us!"
You apparently haven't been to a college campus lately.
Brown v. Board of Education will prevent them from creating two differently-named but otherwise equal contracts, as even that violates the 14th amendment.
I suggest you re-read Brown. Specifically, the "separate-but-equal" argument was rejected because not because this was insufficient under the 14th Amendment, but because in reality they weren't equal.
Well, at least you agree with Bush!
"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.
-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000
No, this has happened. In Romer v. Evans, the SCOTUS invalidated a Colorado constitutional amendment that prohibited state and local municipalities from extending special legal protections to homosexuals.
as far as I am concerned wrong is wrong... even if the supermajority disagrees.
But what if your definition of wrong is itself wrong? If there a better way of resolving these disputes than by conservative (in the sense of "change-resistant") but democratic institutions, I'm all ears.
Blah, blah, blah. Way to flame, even though I tried to be as civil as possible. If you are correct, why even have elections? Why not just have philospher kings? What minority protections are at stake here, anyways? The protection from hurt feelings? Uncomfortable situtations? Disapproval of others?
Honestly. Have we really gone so far, that the mere suggestion that citizens ought to have some say in the laws that govern them implies death camps in your mind?
Why does the government need to be involved with this on any level?
No, obviously I am talking about an amendment that removes the issue from the juridiction of the federal courts, and allows the little people to make the laws that govern themselves through the democratic processes. I have no problem whatsoever with gay-friendly legislation passing through democratic processes. Even if I disagree with it, at least I have a voice in the process. I DO have a problem with federal courts arbitrarily reading their own values into the Constitution and overriding the decisions of even state supermajorities.
And can you actually say what any of these 'special' rights are?
An example would be similar to the laws of Canada, where it's okay to say that Gill Bates should be crucified for producing software I hate, but it's a criminal offense to say that Gill Bates should be crucified for being gay.
At least they are making it easy for when they all get overturned for being unconsitutional. Rather then have to jump through hoops trying to undo laws and rewritting consitutions, we can hit all 11 in one fell swoop.
Are you just dying to get the federal constitution amended or something? Because I promise you that if the SCOTUS had the arrogance to do this, all hell would break loose and the US Constitution would have the 28th Amendment in record time.
Regardless of what is sufficient to be a normal environment, I tend to believe that "mother and father" is necessary. I can be persuaded the other way, though, by empirical evidence.
Yes! This is actually a really useful hack; especially in conjunction with the generic postscript driver. Blammo! Instant postscript programs for any output that can be printed.
Are you sure about this? I don't know if you are talking about federal or state funding, but I've only seen the levels of funding go in one direction: up. Now - the funding increases may not have kept pace with the increases in the costs of education; and the amount of aid per capita may be less, due to far more people using the public good; but this is not the same as saying that overall public funding has dropped.
That fact immediately set off my BS detector. There are a myriad of less expensive, more capable, full-color units with high-quality built-in recording (iRiver H320?!?) whose only disadvantage to the iPod is the inability to play iTunes DRM'ed songs and lack of Apple marketing.
I don't think you are correct. "Gross" usually means before any deductions. For example, "gross receipts" referrs to all money collected, whatever it was used for. "Net revenues" would be what you describe, the actual revenues calculated when expenses are deducted.
Re:timing not coincidental with Tiger?
on
Longhorn Preview
·
· Score: 1
What's funny is it seems that this is exactly what Sony is going to do to Microsoft in the console market. What goes around, comes around, I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
Except for the inconvenient fact that this isn't true. Between 1990 and 2003, 123 of 3,599 death sentences, or 3.4%, were given to individuals who committed crimes before reaching age 18. By contrast, only 2.1% of those sentenced to death between 1982 and 1988 committed the crimes when they were under 18. As for actual executions of under-18 offenders, they constituted 2.4% of the total executions since 1973. Thus, the numbers of under-18 offenders subjected to the death penalty, though low compared with adults, have either held steady or slightly increased. Furthermore, additional states have explicitly allowed for such punishment in recent years.
The court has previously held that in determining the meaning of "unusual," that this determination should be based on whether or not there exists a "national consensus" on the matter, as determined by "objective indicia that reflect the public attitude toward a given sanction"-namely, "statutes passed by society's elected representatives." How can the view of less than a simple majority of the states that permit capital punishment be a national consensus? How are the views of foreign governments relevant to this question?
Don't presume that because I disagree with the court, that I don't know what I'm talking about.
I also meant to reply, that my answer is somewhat of a cop-out because of course the vaguest laws that the courts have to deal with are the Constitutional provisions - the very ones they cannot invalidate. In this case, I would argue that the text of the document should be considered first; then, the clear intent of the original writers of the provision. And that's it. If it still cannot be resolved, then the court should probably defer to the legislature and allow the challenged law to stand.
This is never their intent. Trust me. Federal courts will flame you brutally if you attempt to suggest that the SCOTUS approves of a lower court ruling simply because they declined to take a case that challenged it. Denial of certiori means nothing.
Where did I ever say that? I absolutely agree the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That said - where it is silent, that silence should NOT be presumed to be space for federal judges to fill up with their own concepts of good and bad policy. For example, the Constitution states nowhere that prisoners must be over the age of 18 to be eligbile for execution. But *bing*! Like magic, that's suddenly mandated by the Constitution, because a majority of the SCOTUS thinks that it's a good idea. THAT, I disagree with.
Am I wrong to wonder about socialization?
You apparently haven't been to a college campus lately.
I suggest you re-read Brown. Specifically, the "separate-but-equal" argument was rejected because not because this was insufficient under the 14th Amendment, but because in reality they weren't equal.
1. Decline to hear the case at all, until a more amenable factual situation arises (only an option for the SCOTUS.)
2. Invalidate the law for being unconstitutionally vague. If the court can't figure it out, how can anybody who is supposed to follow the law?
Well, at least you agree with Bush! "I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked. -- CNN.com, December 18, 2000
No, this has happened. In Romer v. Evans , the SCOTUS invalidated a Colorado constitutional amendment that prohibited state and local municipalities from extending special legal protections to homosexuals.
But what if your definition of wrong is itself wrong? If there a better way of resolving these disputes than by conservative (in the sense of "change-resistant") but democratic institutions, I'm all ears.
Blah, blah, blah. Way to flame, even though I tried to be as civil as possible. If you are correct, why even have elections? Why not just have philospher kings? What minority protections are at stake here, anyways? The protection from hurt feelings? Uncomfortable situtations? Disapproval of others?
Honestly. Have we really gone so far, that the mere suggestion that citizens ought to have some say in the laws that govern them implies death camps in your mind?
No, obviously I am talking about an amendment that removes the issue from the juridiction of the federal courts, and allows the little people to make the laws that govern themselves through the democratic processes. I have no problem whatsoever with gay-friendly legislation passing through democratic processes. Even if I disagree with it, at least I have a voice in the process. I DO have a problem with federal courts arbitrarily reading their own values into the Constitution and overriding the decisions of even state supermajorities.
An example would be similar to the laws of Canada, where it's okay to say that Gill Bates should be crucified for producing software I hate, but it's a criminal offense to say that Gill Bates should be crucified for being gay.
Are you just dying to get the federal constitution amended or something? Because I promise you that if the SCOTUS had the arrogance to do this, all hell would break loose and the US Constitution would have the 28th Amendment in record time.
Regardless of what is sufficient to be a normal environment, I tend to believe that "mother and father" is necessary. I can be persuaded the other way, though, by empirical evidence.
Yes! This is actually a really useful hack; especially in conjunction with the generic postscript driver. Blammo! Instant postscript programs for any output that can be printed.
Are you sure about this? I don't know if you are talking about federal or state funding, but I've only seen the levels of funding go in one direction: up. Now - the funding increases may not have kept pace with the increases in the costs of education; and the amount of aid per capita may be less, due to far more people using the public good; but this is not the same as saying that overall public funding has dropped.
Um, are you sure?
Valid academic reasons? Does the iPod support ogg vorbis? Does it support any non-proprietary audio formats other than uncompressed audio?
That fact immediately set off my BS detector. There are a myriad of less expensive, more capable, full-color units with high-quality built-in recording (iRiver H320?!?) whose only disadvantage to the iPod is the inability to play iTunes DRM'ed songs and lack of Apple marketing.
Microsfot does offer their Beta products for free. Satisfied?
It can run ActiveX applications that have already been designed and implemented.
I don't think you are correct. "Gross" usually means before any deductions. For example, "gross receipts" referrs to all money collected, whatever it was used for. "Net revenues" would be what you describe, the actual revenues calculated when expenses are deducted.
What's funny is it seems that this is exactly what Sony is going to do to Microsoft in the console market. What goes around, comes around, I guess.