Endzone Animal

"Marshawn speak": "Uhh...uhhh....I didn't do nuffin' to nobody. 'Da po-lice can't prove sh-t, an' I ain't gonna let some fat assed white B word get me no felony rap. F-ck dat." The lawyer most certainly did help Marshawn, I would say.

From a purely Bills football perspective, this will help negatively impact Lynch's character rating come the next contract negotiation. Assuming the Bills are still in Buffalo by then, that could lower market value enough so that maybe we can afford to keep him.

Are you suggesting that the current process is satisfactory?

I'll couple it with a JP vs Trent theme.

From reading that lawyer speak, I think we can all agree that nobody will change their minds on what happened based on this letter. If you have been accepting Lynch's alibi all along you will remain satisfied, and if you think he was more culpable than you believe the attorney just typed out whatever BS he had to to make this plea legal. Either way, it's over but not forgotten.

If you had to take a wild guess, why do you suppose the death penalty is so "expensive"? (hint: it isn't the execution)

Nope. No reason for me to pay for his meals or his health care.

Speaking of stupid...

Well, than it's a good thing that the penal system isn't based on choosing punishment based on what the criminal thinks is right. I am quite certain that if you raped children there would be no shortage of people willing to inject you with the poison, and if it made you happy to die than feel free to consider the state merciful and sensitive to your feelings.

I'm confused...wasn't Lynch announcing his plea of guilty today? Did he change his mind on the deal he supposedly cut?

It costs much, much less to execute than pay for their incarceration. As for the "bad guy", will no longer be able to go on the internet, eat 3 hot meals a day, watch cable tv, have a warm bed, read his favorite magazines, write poetry, receive visits and phone calls from friends and family, socialize, or feel the sun on his face. There is a reason that prisoners who are on death row appeal...they would rather stay in jail than be killed.

He has roots in Chautauqua, right?

Would it for you?

If you read the entire conversation, you would have realized that the argument given against the death penalty was that it is cruel to the criminal and does no good for the victim. I demonstrated very clearly that this way of thinking is misguided on both counts. You are of course correct in saying that laws should not be enacted that give full penal decision making to the victim, but nobody ever suggested that they should. Honest mistake, but your point wasn't being suggested by either side of the discussion.

Many, many violent crimes are committed by violent criminals granted early prison release by liberal judges. Women traumatized by violent rapists are often stalked by them again after their release, and are repeatedly threatened by mail or email from their prison cells. The only time there is really no threat is when they are dead. The cruel, unrepentent criminal is given 3 hot meals a day; a social network of inmates; access to cable TV, basketball courts, and exersize rooms; visitation from friends and family; a fully stocked library, and full internet access. The victim is often disfigured physically and mentally for the rest of their life. As far as lowering our own standards to execute these hideous creatures, well, you may feel sadness when our most brutal, violent, sadistic criminals are killed for their crimes against humanity, but most of us, including the victims who are living with the horror every single day, will only feel closure when they are dead.

Executing a convicted child rapist is the moral equivalent of raping innocent children? Says who? Not me, that's for sure. By this flawed logic imprisoning a child rapist is also the equivalent of raping an innocent child.

Here's your answer: The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." -Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority opinion

Neither will putting him in jail.

Funny how the same liberal justices who granted a constitutional right-to-life for serial child rapists, today ruled in their minority opinion that the government may ban law-abiding americans the right to keep and bear arms. Gotta love that twisted philosophy of "evolving standards".

I believe they were introduced simultaneously...I know they were sung by the same performer.

Douglas was the embodiment of judicial activism. Judicial activism specifically refers to the judicial philosophy of "evolving standards" rather than "textualism" or "constructionism". Kennedy used the term "evolving standards" in his majority opinion explaining why the liberal judges on the court decided to overturn existing death penalty laws in 6 states. This decision you may agree with if you believe in the practice of judicial activism, but that doesn't change the fact that it is law being invented by justices who have a progressive world view and use the loophole created by Douglas to legislate from the bench. “If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again. You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That’s flexibility. Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?” -Antonin Scalia

I had a feeling.

This ruling is a judicial error. The constitution and the 8th ammendment do not tell the legislature what crimes they are forbidden to pass laws imposing the death penalty for. Rather, this is a practice called "judicial activism", or re-interpereting the constitution to fit the EVOLVING STANDARDS of the progressive worldview of the judges themselves. It is essentially making the legislature obsolete, as it empowers the courts to declare what is constutional based on arbitrary opinions of how society should be formed according to the Lifetime Appointed Ones.