Ugh

[madasacutsnake]

To be fair, Ashcroft is not talking about the courts per se being unaccountable. He is talking about the difference between lawmaking via the electorate voting for its legislators, who then pass laws or amendments (and if you don't like 'em, you don't vote the legislators in again) and the judicial branch, whose job it is supposed to be simply to explain and apply the laws in existence. They aren't supposed to make law. In that fashion, courts are not supposed to be accountable to the people. That's what the legislative branch is supposed to be for, and it is accountable to the electorate.

It was also my assumption that the writer is confusing "legislation" (the making of law) with the execution of the legislators' decisions. There is a distinction to be made between the "executive" and "judicial" functions" but there is an overlap in many cases.

However. Judges are there to enforce the law as it is; they have no discretion to dispense with the law for anyone, even a president.

[Smartypants]

Originally posted by trisherina
To be fair, Ashcroft is not talking about the courts per se being unaccountable. He is talking about the difference between lawmaking via the electorate voting for its legislators, who then pass laws or amendments (and if you don't like 'em, you don't vote the legislators in again) and the judicial branch, whose job it is supposed to be simply to explain and apply the laws in existence. They aren't supposed to make law. In that fashion, courts are not supposed to be accountable to the people. That's what the legislative branch is supposed to be for, and it is accountable to the electorate.

Norma McCorvey, btw:
In 2003, McCorvey filed suit asking a federal court in Texas to re-open and reconsider Roe v. Wade. She claimed that new scientific and legal developments undermined the decision's validity.

This has the full text of the 1973 decision. It contains a number of full text decisions. The tenor of the page is not pro-choice; don't say I didn't warn you.

What Ashcroft wants, along with the entire Bush administration, is to control the courts and make it a tool of the Christian right, instead of the important independent guardian of the Constitution that was included in our goverment's construction to protect Americans from narrow-minded presidents and wrong-headed lawmakers.

We are after all a "nation of laws" and the court system's role is to interpret the law. The Supreme Court's sole role is to interpret the Constitution and judge whether the laws of the land violate the tenets of that document.

There was a time, in my lifetime, (even at the time of Roe v Wade) that one was able to believe that the Court did just that, with no regard for religious interference, political consequence, or personal preferences influencing their decisions. Isn't it sad that that will never be the case again?

I still believe that the reason Roe still stands is that the decision was not an emotional one, but a non-biased interpretation of the Constitution. There are no opponents to Roe who don't base their opposition on their religions' teachings. No reasonable arguments have been made against the ruling based on an objective reading of the pertinent Constitutional provisions.

As for McCorvey, again I'll direct you to the Church to understand her position. Jesus, through those who claim to speak for him, is the one she is following, not the teachings of Adams, Jefferson, et al.

[trisherina]

I think it's those "broad discretionary powers" (I R00L! I HAVE BROAD DI$CRET!ONARY POWARZ!!!!) Constitutionally provided to the President that freak out the electorate.

That whole Supreme Court stuffing business according to which hand is leading the nation is certainly regrettable. From here in Canada, it's always a bit painful to watch. Dubya says he wants a Supreme Court that will stick to the Constitution like glue. Often that means "...right up until I disagree with what the Constitution says." We'll see.

[Smartypants]

Based on Bush's behavior as president, there are a number of us down here who wonder if he's ever read the damn thing (or even had it read to him.)

[priceyfatprude]

Originally posted by Smartypants
Actually, there's another VERY big difference.

OK, now:

It's true that this was made a bigger deal than other domestic homicides (I think men murdering their wives is the most common form of murder in the US) due to the fact that this was a photogenic couple, but that's not the whole story. The other reason, and we will see where this leads to, is that this was a test case to see if someone could be convicted of a double murder for killing a pregnant woman. The guilty verdict for the murder of the fetus here opens the same door that choice advocates were concerned the so-called "late-birth" abortion ban would have opened had it passed.

Once an unborn fetus is declared a full-fledged person with the same rights of government protection as a breathing, post-natal human being, the anti-choice forces are going to start applying that yardstick to every fertilized cell, every fetal stem cell, every "victim" of morning-after pills, etc., etc.

Granted, Ms. Peterson's fetus was on the brink of birth at the time of the crime, but every little crack that the religious right can find to put a wedge in to widen with the goal of overturning Roe v. Wade, is a step towards a return to the Dark Days prior to 1973.

What's more, if THIS is the route that social conservatives takes to reverse Roe, then women who need to break the law to terminate their pregnancies, and their doctors, won't just be charged with a minor crime; the charge will be murder in first degree.

I understand that women were the most eager to throw Peterson's ass into San Quentin or the gas chamber, identifying with the wife and her victimization by an arrogant man, but all women should take a deep breath and ponder the consequences of today's verdict concerning the "murder" of her "baby" and whether, in fact, it was pursued with such high-profile rigor by men who pose a greater overall threat to American women.

-- And that again, is why such a big deal was made of using this "perfect" couple as an example. Roe's identity was kept a secret not just to protect her privacy, but because Norma McCovey, the real "Jane Roe," was poor and uneducated, opening her case to prejudicial treatment. You can be certain that the effort and cost would not have been expended here if Scott Peterson was a big fat white-trash slob who sat around in a wife-beater, and Laci worked at the local Dairy Queen and was missing her two front teeth. If that were so, chances are the jury wouldn't have seen her unborn child as human enough to convict.

Notice that the papers refer to the unborn child by the name it would have had had it been born. He has in no uncertain terms been made a "martyr for the cause."

This is the first thing I thought of, too, Aud. It's a slippery slope. At what point do you consider a fetus viable? I was born 3 weeks early, babies have been born much earlier than that & survived. While I think the death of Laci Peterson & her unborn baby is deplorable, I'm not sure this should be 2 counts of murder. It opens the door for all kinds of fundamental Christian bullshit laws to be passed regarding abortion. No matter your stance on it, it should be kept legal so that it will be safe, if needed. It should be a last resort, (and actually I think the decision is one that is between a woman & her maker) but it should be legal. Google Gerri Santoro if you don't agree with me, look at the pics & then get back to me. We don't EVER want to have to go through times like that EVER again!!!

Has he been sentenced yet?

[Avalon]

He hsn't been sentenced yet because his attys. keep petitioning for a change of jury for the sentencing phase.

[sparticle]

Originally posted by priceyfatprude
This is the first thing I thought of, too, Aud. It's a slippery slope. At what point do you consider a fetus viable? I was born 3 weeks early, babies have been born much earlier than that & survived. While I think the death of Laci Peterson & her unborn baby is deplorable, I'm not sure this should be 2 counts of murder. It opens the door for all kinds of fundamental Christian bullshit laws to be passed regarding abortion. No matter your stance on it, it should be kept legal so that it will be safe, if needed. It should be a last resort, (and actually I think the decision is one that is between a woman & her maker) but it should be legal. Google Gerri Santoro if you don't agree with me, look at the pics & then get back to me. We don't EVER want to have to go through times like that EVER again!!!

I couldn't agree with you more!

[Gatsby]

I think he'll probably get the death penalty. But being executed is entirely another matter.

Right now, California has more inmates on death row than any other state - right now they're at 635. But, just like every other state, the number of actual executions is dropping every year. Last year California executed only 19 people.

After all the direct appeals, collateral appeals, and habeas corpus proceedings, I'll be very surprised if we see him put to death in the next 20 years, if at all.

His attorneys are too good. With our death penalty system, so rife with inconsistencies and error, money can buy you life.

[zenbabe]

I think becoming somebody's little bitch in San Quentin is punishment enough, he is a pretty boy!

[zenbabe]

Oh Oh Oh!! It's today!!!!

[zenbabe]

DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!!

[drivinmissdaisy]

I watched in live on my computer at work. Wow.