tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post3253091477379295970..comments2023-10-24T11:23:31.580-04:00Comments on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: Were We Indecent in 1980?William A. Jacobsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16433685588536441422noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-80095664389728254512010-05-21T14:52:50.446-04:002010-05-21T14:52:50.446-04:00"Evolving standards of decency" are you ..."Evolving standards of decency" are you serious? It is not that our society has become more decent it is the fact that we tolerate every kind of evil, because we are oblivious to it's very existence. Cruel and unusual punishment is what the victims suffer, not the criminals.Beef Blogonoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10363089823000002331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-87985292556546253792010-05-20T06:42:03.268-04:002010-05-20T06:42:03.268-04:00Well, yes we were indecent in 1980. Jimmy Carter ...Well, yes we were indecent in 1980. Jimmy Carter was in the White House, Tip O'Neill was Speaker of the House and Jim Wright was majority leader, and Senate majority leader was ex-Klansman Robert Byrd. No coup here. Americans elected them.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04635525917447411048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-54913570121081422512010-05-18T20:23:08.250-04:002010-05-18T20:23:08.250-04:00Because the Court decided that it is cruel and unu...Because the Court decided that it is cruel and unusual to put a teenager in jail for life for all crimes other than homicide, does not mean that those that perpetrated your examples of depravity will actually be released. They may be granted parole hearing but a parole hearing does not necessarily lead to release.Remember most murderers in this country truly only serve on average 5 years in prison as well.The problem with sweeping legislation is that it attaches itself to the depraved and those that make the kind of mistakes whereby society helps them learn and change course. <br /><br />The Consitution is a living document, written in such a way that it can be interpreted by every generation because the founding fathers knew that society would change and would put its own stamp on society. In fact i believe if you read the federalist papers Madison actually even alludes to that being the reason for much of the Constitution's vagueness.<br /><br />It is also my understanding that since SCOTUS' jurisdiction is written into the Constitution you would need to amend the Constitution in order to change its purpose. The rest of the judiciary was created by The Judiciary Act and is therefore changeable by a simple law.<br /><br />Of course, this is just my reasoning and understanding of Consitutional law. However, I am not a law professor so I am willing to stand corrected and would be glad for a lesson if I need to be corrected.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-19170721442150585292010-05-18T13:34:38.299-04:002010-05-18T13:34:38.299-04:00How about electing officials who will pass legisla...How about electing officials who will pass legislation limiting the jurisdiction of the courts? I think that is a Constitutional power of the Congress. Any constitutional lawyers out there?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01893483244005234435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-53953667243071540922010-05-18T12:08:37.203-04:002010-05-18T12:08:37.203-04:00The thing is, even if society changes - the CONSTI...The thing is, even if society changes - the CONSTITUTION DOESN'T. The Supreme Court is supposed to hold us to the Constitution, not the other way around. These people sicken me.shirley elizabethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00531842026700203446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-13964672143932216342010-05-18T12:00:57.601-04:002010-05-18T12:00:57.601-04:00Unfortunately, after BHO's two picks, Ms Ginsb...Unfortunately, after BHO's two picks, Ms Ginsburg will drop from the first to the third most liberal member of the court.Roycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00355616675481661310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-60159408619521672162010-05-18T11:08:23.020-04:002010-05-18T11:08:23.020-04:00Question - given the other SCOTUS decision mention...Question - given the other SCOTUS decision mentioned yesterday (federal gov't can hold "sexually dangerous" persons after their sentence is completed) how do these two decisions line up? They seem contradictory. <br /><br />Perhaps it is the job of the federal government to now intercede in state justice to ensure states make "sexually dangerous" convicts lifers.....? The examples you quoted that Justice Roberts highlighted are both examples of "sexually dangerous" convicted criminals. That would be an over-stretch of federal power, if that is the case. Curiouser and curiouser.DINORightMariehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01067345219054999889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-40666973694653729552010-05-18T10:38:08.168-04:002010-05-18T10:38:08.168-04:00I interpreted "evolving standards of decency&...I interpreted "evolving standards of decency" as "defining deviancy down". I think we are a coarser society than in 1980. It is not unusual to hear vulgar language and behavior not only in entertainment venues, but at the local high school. And we are becoming numb to it. It seems we are becoming animal like in our response to the beauty of life. And in the animal world, we are told, the strong survive. Imagine a world with government condoned human predatory animals on the loose. And they wonder why gun sales are so high.Ralphhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06320105485736052679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-7721778659967166332010-05-18T10:21:06.842-04:002010-05-18T10:21:06.842-04:00I am beginning to wonder if the so-called "co...I am beginning to wonder if the so-called "conservative majority" on the Supreme Court is in fact a sham. This majority view is a travesty of true justice, as indicated by Justice Roberts' examples you quoted.<br /><br />What is the definition of oligarchy? "[A] form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few" --dictionary.com<br /><br />These "majority" Supremes, along with Obama-Reid-Pelosi, are the embodiment of an oligarchy. They are ruling; regime is a fitting term for this gang.DINORightMariehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01067345219054999889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-72608235035846062432010-05-18T08:12:06.585-04:002010-05-18T08:12:06.585-04:00Yes. I fear the Supreme Court is beginning to look...Yes. I fear the Supreme Court is beginning to look at themselves, especially with the addition of Obama appointee(s), as a court of Supreme beings, not just justices.T.L. Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06751425084581610325noreply@blogger.com