This bugs me
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=188677
Printed Date: 23 March 2026 at 5:28pm Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: This bugs me
Posted By: Mack
Subject: This bugs me
Date Posted: 06 July 2011 at 4:14pm
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/obama-asks-stay-execution-texas-165829939.html - Link
There's more the article but this provides the basic idea.
article wrote:
President Obama is asking the Supreme Court to stay tomorrow's planned
execution of a Mexican citizen in Texas, arguing it could do
"irreparable harm" to U.S. interests abroad.
In 1994, Humberto Leal Garcia Jr. was convicted of rape and murder
and sentenced to death. Few doubt that he's guilty of the crime, but an
omission in the handling of his case may make things tough for American
citizens arrested abroad: Leal wasn't told that he could contact the
Mexican Consulate. |
Perhaps I'm reading to much into this but I can't help but get the feeling that FE isn't the only one who doesn't fully grasp the concept of the separation of legislative, executive, and judicial functions.
-------------
|
Replies:
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 06 July 2011 at 4:21pm
Mack wrote:
Perhaps I'm reading to much into this but I can't help but get the feeling that FE isn't the only one who doesn't fully grasp the concept of the separation of legislative, executive, and judicial functions.
|
The precedent has existed, I do believe, for a while now that the "executive" has the ability to place a stay on an execution.
Thus state governors being well within their powers to grant a stay of execution. You know, the red phone and all that.
Disagreeing with the decision to grant the stay is one thing, but the stay itself is part of the established checks and balance system.
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 06 July 2011 at 4:41pm
I don't see it being stayed, as the US Supreme Court has already ruled on the matter;
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that neither Texas nor any U.S. state could be held to an international treaty unless Congress passed a law binding them to it. |
I don't see the USSC doing a proactive stay for a law that may or may not get passed.
-------------
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 06 July 2011 at 5:19pm
|
The government should not have the power to decide if one lives or not.
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 06 July 2011 at 5:26pm
impulse418 wrote:
The government should not have the power to decide if one lives or not.
|
Which side of the fence are you sitting on for this issue? Just curious, because your statement works on both.
|
Posted By: deadeye007
Date Posted: 06 July 2011 at 5:29pm
It's one thing to be visiting another country and need a consulate after being arrested, but this guy lived in Texas since age 2. I'm speculating here, but I don't believe he intended on going back to Mexico and this is just an attempt to find a loophole.
------------- Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 06 July 2011 at 5:58pm
choopie911 wrote:
impulse418 wrote:
The government should not have the power to decide if one lives or not.
|
Which side of the fence are you sitting on for this issue? Just curious, because your statement works on both. |
Capital punishment needs to be abolished on a Federal level.
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 06 July 2011 at 6:23pm
impulse418 wrote:
The government should not have the power to decide if one lives or not.
|
Out of sheer curiosity, does this extend to wartime matters and abortion?
-------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 06 July 2011 at 6:38pm
impulse418 wrote:
choopie911 wrote:
impulse418 wrote:
The government should not have the power to decide if one lives or not.
|
Which side of the fence are you sitting on for this issue? Just curious, because your statement works on both. |
Capital punishment needs to be abolished on a Federal level.
|
Why not also on the state level?
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 06 July 2011 at 6:46pm
Gatyr: Applies to wartime. Abortion is the mothers choice, not a governing body.
Whale: To clarify, Federal and down the chain. So same with state
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 06 July 2011 at 6:52pm
impulse418 wrote:
Gatyr: Applies to wartime.
| Abortion and capital punishment aside, let me get your view straight:
You're advocating disbanding the military?
-------------
|
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 06 July 2011 at 7:48pm
agentwhale007 wrote:
Mack wrote:
Perhaps I'm reading to much into this but I can't help but get the feeling that FE isn't the only one who doesn't fully grasp the concept of the separation of legislative, executive, and judicial functions.
|
The precedent has existed, I do believe, for a while now that the "executive" has the ability to place a stay on an execution.
Thus state governors being well within their powers to grant a stay of execution. You know, the red phone and all that.
Disagreeing with the decision to grant the stay is one thing, but the stay itself is part of the established checks and balance system. |
Didn't read the article, but I am guessing Mack's beef isn't with an executive stay, but what appears to be the President attempting to influence the Supreme Court's ruling on a judicial decision. If that is the case, then I think I agree with Mack - it does appear inappropriate at first blush.
Of course, Presidents try to influence legislative decisions all the time, but somehow judicial decisions feel different.
-------------
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 06 July 2011 at 7:55pm
Linus wrote:
impulse418 wrote:
Gatyr: Applies to wartime.
| Abortion and capital punishment aside, let me get your view straight:
You're advocating disbanding the military?
|
I was thinking more along the lines of military executions of war criminals.
But anyway "conflicts" being fought right now, should be construed as murder anyway, especially Libya!
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 06 July 2011 at 8:00pm
Donald Blake wrote:
but somehow judicial decisions feel different.
|
It's all in the robes.
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 07 July 2011 at 12:55pm
Donald Blake wrote:
Didn't read the article, but I am guessing Mack's beef isn't with an executive stay, but what appears to be the President attempting to influence the Supreme Court's ruling on a judicial decision. If that is the case, then I think I agree with Mack - it does appear inappropriate at first blush.
Of course, Presidents try to influence legislative decisions all the time, but somehow judicial decisions feel different.
|
Nail on the head.
That is exactly what bugs me about this. Especially when you get into the part about wanting the stay until the law can be changed.*
*Which wouldn't be retroactive anyway would it?
-------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 07 July 2011 at 3:22pm
|
Presidents manipulate the court all the time.
look at his latest "judge" you know, the one who said she had nothing at all to do with obamacare...
yeah, right.
Course she will end up being a vote for him...
"the ends justify the means" is one of the foundations of the liberal rule book.
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 07 July 2011 at 4:37pm
FreeEnterprise wrote:
look at his latest "judge" |
"Judge" indeed - she is no judge.
She is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, which is entirely different.
-------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 07 July 2011 at 4:44pm
Donald Blake wrote:
FreeEnterprise wrote:
look at his latest "judge" |
"Judge" indeed - she is no judge.
She is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, which is entirely different.
|
I'm a big fan of the modern use of full quotation marks as an attempt at linguistic sneering. I'm seeing it more and more on the Internet in places where politics are oft debated, like here and FARK.
Anything you don't like, just toss it in quotes as an attempt to present it as lesser, or fake.
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 07 July 2011 at 6:40pm
agentwhale007 wrote:
Donald Blake wrote:
FreeEnterprise wrote:
look at his latest "judge" |
"Judge" indeed - she is no judge.
She is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, which is entirely different.
|
I'm a big fan of the modern use of full quotation marks as an attempt at linguistic sneering. I'm seeing it more and more on the Internet in places where politics are oft debated, like here and FARK.
Anything you don't like, just toss it in quotes as an attempt to present it as lesser, or fake. |
Hmmmmm . . .
. . . how about that "FE" guy?
-------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 07 July 2011 at 6:43pm
Mack wrote:
. . . how about that "FE" guy?
|
He sure "posts" on this forum.
Oh, and upon your point being clarified, then I see where you're coming from. Sorry for missing your point earlier.
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 07 July 2011 at 6:46pm
Apology accepted . . .
. . . but I'm pretty certain you misunderstood me on purpose because you are a liberal journalist and were trying to discredit me before the next forum elections. 
In all seriousness, I didn't explain why it bothered me very well; probably because I really hadn't put my finger on exactly what it was yet that got to me about the President's actions. DB explained it quite well.
-------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 07 July 2011 at 6:54pm
|
Of course I could have said "Sorry for missing your "point" earlier," and then I would have looked like a jerk.
But yeah, with the clarification, I agree with you for the most part. I'll have to read more into it. I had no idea it was a thing, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 07 July 2011 at 7:13pm
You two lovebirds make me sick.
Don't you know democrats and republicans are supposed to be at war with each other? Get this rational conversation out of my face.
-------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 08 July 2011 at 12:31pm
Score one for the Supreme Court
[The Supreme Court] doubted "that it is ever appropriate to stay a lower court judgment in light of unenacted legislation."
"Our task is to rule on what the law is, not what it might eventually be," the majority said. |
-------------
|
|