Casey Got Away But..

[OCinBuffalo]

How can anyone provide a provable effect of something that just happened a few hours ago? Tell me about the clear significant effect of the gay marriage law, as the point you've been harping on didn't involve religious institutions but affiliates of the religious institutions. For the same reasons that Catholic charities argued for exemption in the gay marriage law (fear of repercussions down the road) the feds (Obama AND Bush) argued that the states should follow international guidelines (fear of repercussions down the road).

 

But, no the two are in no way the same argument.

Simple:

 

The effect of making gay marriage legal, without the accompanying restrictions on the assclowns, and protections for the religious was obvious, and quantifiable = there would be massive costs in legal fees because the ACLU would sue every church for the right for gay people to be married there. Don't bother denying it: their crusade against the Boy Scouts is all the precedent I need for any reasonable person the stipulate the net effect would have been well beyond tangible and hell, even measurable. If you can't concede that, then you ain't reasonable. I knew the effect 3 months before the law was passed....and so did Gov. Cuomo. Ask him why he made sure these restrictions were in place before he tried to pass it, if he didn't know the effect prior to passing it.

 

On the other hand, we have...well, the entire military history of the world...that shows us that "the rules of war" are followed about 20% of the time, and only when it's convenient and/or not doing so would have real consequences. Given the precedents here....your arguing that this case is somehow going to contravene these historical norms? Or, that it is going to make them any worse? Let's assume you are right. Ok, so now countries only do things properly 15% of the time...yeah, big difference. The truth is: this ruling will have no or a negligible effect, and it cannot be quantified or measured.

 

If you ask any soldier they will tell you: they know the risk and they expect the worst from the enemy. That's why we call them enemy, and not "guy whose point of view I don't share currently". This John McCain argument is merely some sort of cathartic goofball construct...kinda like when he suspended his campaign to "save" the country...and had 0 effect on legislation that was already completed.

[Booster4324]

The only thing that is far past tiresome is your inability to add anything to a thread besides "I agree, sort of" or an emoticon. How are the posts above any different? Why do you even bother posting here? You contribute nothing. You aren't good at trolling, you never understand when you are being trolled. You never say anything even remotely interesting...

 

...yet you keep saying "Winning!".

 

Pathetic.

 

How is that gays can't get married or the world will end logic working for you? No wonder you hate me, I keep tying you in knots with a what, 1 to 40, word count ratio? I shouldn't brag or exaggerate though, your posts may indeed have a far higher word count.

 

Edit - I love how I have gotten under your skin. Oh and could you use the term "Fail" one more time? I think you are lagging behind and you have fallen below the requisite average of one per post.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Booster4324

[OCinBuffalo]

How is that gays can't get married or the world will end logic working for you? No wonder you hate me, I keep tying you in knots with a what, 1 to 40, word count ratio? I shouldn't brag or exaggerate though, your posts may indeed have a far higher word count.

 

Edit - I love how I have gotten under your skin. Oh and could you use the term "Fail" one more time? I think you are lagging behind and you have fallen below the requisite average of one per post.

Look, more unsubstantiated "Winning!".

 

Tying me in knots? Is that what you call: yet to have argued effectively against a single point I have made on this board, ever? And then: PMing me that you are "Winning!". See, this is why I call you a retard. I bet you honestly believe that you have "gotten" me, and that's what makes dealing with you so fun. It's a rare treat to deal with your level of delusions, based on projection and insecurity, in a way that has 0 consequences for me.

 

Speaking of delusions of grandeur: perhaps you should call for another vote. Why not? It's 3am, all your "friends" are bound to be here, just waiting to cast their vote for you, the super awesome guy, just like they were there last time(Friday 9pm) because everybody on this board knows you are the cool kid nobody messes with, right? Well, that's what you and your "friends" think, anyway.

 

Again, Pathetic. The only thing you can talk about is #of words in my posts and that's funny......

 

EDIT: and, 4 you Red Eye fans, no, I was talking about Booster = "Winning" way before tonight's show. Merely a coincidence.

Edited July 8, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[GG]

Simple:

 

The effect of making gay marriage legal, without the accompanying restrictions on the assclowns, and protections for the religious was obvious, and quantifiable = there would be massive costs in legal fees because the ACLU would sue every church for the right for gay people to be married there. Don't bother denying it: their crusade against the Boy Scouts is all the precedent I need for any reasonable person the stipulate the net effect would have been well beyond tangible and hell, even measurable. If you can't concede that, then you ain't reasonable. I knew the effect 3 months before the law was passed....and so did Gov. Cuomo. Ask him why he made sure these restrictions were in place before he tried to pass it, if he didn't know the effect prior to passing it.

 

On the other hand, we have...well, the entire military history of the world...that shows us that "the rules of war" are followed about 20% of the time, and only when it's convenient and/or not doing so would have real consequences. Given the precedents here....your arguing that this case is somehow going to contravene these historical norms? Or, that it is going to make them any worse? Let's assume you are right. Ok, so now countries only do things properly 15% of the time...yeah, big difference. The truth is: this ruling will have no or a negligible effect, and it cannot be quantified or measured.

 

If you ask any soldier they will tell you: they know the risk and they expect the worst from the enemy. That's why we call them enemy, and not "guy whose point of view I don't share currently". This John McCain argument is merely some sort of cathartic goofball construct...kinda like when he suspended his campaign to "save" the country...and had 0 effect on legislation that was already completed.

 

Yet that logic doesn't apply to gay marriage, even though there have been no cases of gay couples suing churches to allow gay weddings? And we're supposed to believe that Andrew Cuomo's signature has mystical powers that will suddenly lead to a rash of lawsuits against the clergy, when heretofore there have been 0.

 

How's that twisty windy thingy working out for yah?

[Gary M]

He's siding with international law and a treaty that US signed, to which the federal government is obligated to. Compared to a state law that convicted the murderer.

 

The SC diasgrees with you and Obama.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Leal's request, calling his argument meritless.

 

In a 5-4 decision an hour before the execution, the majority wrote, “We have no authority to stay an execution in light of an 'appeal of the President,' presenting free-ranging assertions of foreign policy consequences, when those assertions come unaccompanied by a persuasive legal claim.”

 

i added the bold

[GG]

The SC diasgrees with you and Obama.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Leal's request, calling his argument meritless.

 

In a 5-4 decision an hour before the execution, the majority wrote, “We have no authority to stay an execution in light of an 'appeal of the President,' presenting free-ranging assertions of foreign policy consequences, when those assertions come unaccompanied by a persuasive legal claim.”

 

i added the bold

 

Let me venture that I understand the ruling better than you do and I can separate the basis of the federal government's legal argument from the emotion of the case. In fact, if you actually read the Court's opinion, they agree with the premise that US has to follow international law, but that absent an act of Congress, Texas does not have to follow international law ahead of its own laws. That was the basis of the case. The Court also decided against delaying the case until the pending Congressional legislation is winding its way through the Hill.

 

Said another way, if Sanders' bill passes, the next Leal will not be executed if Texas continues ignoring international law. It's really that simple.

[Gary M]

Let me venture that I understand the ruling better than you do and I can separate the basis of the federal government's legal argument from the emotion of the case. In fact, if you actually read the Court's opinion, they agree with the premise that US has to follow international law, but that absent an act of Congress, Texas does not have to follow international law ahead of its own laws. That was the basis of the case. The Court also decided against delaying the case until the pending Congressional legislation is winding its way through the Hill.

 

Said another way, if Sanders' bill passes, the next Leal will not be executed if Texas continues ignoring international law. It's really that simple.

 

I understood it completely. The point is after 16 years they wanted to wait six more months so they could set this monster free and Texas told them no, which by current law they were well within their right.

 

"Adria Sauceda, 16, his victim, was found naked by authorities, according to court documents.

"There was a 30- to 40-pound asphalt rock roughly twice the size of the victim's skull lying partially on the victim's left arm," court documents read. "Blood was underneath this rock. A smaller rock with blood on it was located near the victim's right thigh.”

A "bloody and broken" stick roughly 15 inches long with a screw at the end of it was also protruding from the girl's vagina, according to the documents."

[GG]

I understood it completely. The point is after 16 years they wanted to wait six more months so they could set this monster free and Texas told them no, which by current law they were well within their right.

 

"Adria Sauceda, 16, his victim, was found naked by authorities, according to court documents.

"There was a 30- to 40-pound asphalt rock roughly twice the size of the victim's skull lying partially on the victim's left arm," court documents read. "Blood was underneath this rock. A smaller rock with blood on it was located near the victim's right thigh.”

A "bloody and broken" stick roughly 15 inches long with a screw at the end of it was also protruding from the girl's vagina, according to the documents."

 

So much for grasping the concept. The appeals were done by the feds over that last 7 years as the case was being moved through the courts, and was started by Bush. I'm sure that you would have the same indignation over a former Texas governor fighting his former state.

 

And who in the world was saying that the federal legal action was carried out to free the guy? Dear Lord, you people are ridiculous.

[Gary M]

So much for grasping the concept. The appeals were done by the feds over that last 7 years as the case was being moved through the courts, and was started by Bush. I'm sure that you would have the same indignation over a former Texas governor fighting his former state.

 

And who in the world was saying that the federal legal action was carried out to free the guy? Dear Lord, you people are ridiculous.

 

What concept am I missing they appealed and lost, because the cutrrent law sides with Texas. They wanted Texas to wait so they could change the law.

[DC Tom]

What concept am I missing they appealed and lost, because the cutrrent law sides with Texas. They wanted Texas to wait so they could change the law.

 

They wanted Texas to wait so they could FOLLOW the law - that being, allowing him consultation with his consulate, according to international treaty.

 

In itself, that's silly to me, since as I understand it he wasn't denied access, he just wasn't told to pursue the contact. Burden of responsibility for the legal situation is on him, not on the state of Texas, so I'm satisfied with the outcome in that regard. But it doesn't mean either administration was in any sense incorrect in promoting his rights under a binding international treaty.

[Gary M]

They wanted Texas to wait so they could FOLLOW the law - that being, allowing him consultation with his consulate, according to international treaty.

 

Last Friday, the Obama administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stop Texas from executing Leal, asking the court to delay the execution for up to six months to give Congress time to consider legislation that would enforce the U.N. treaty.

 

Congress had three years to pass the bill but did not. Hence, it was impossible to pass a bill that would spare Leal unless a stay is ordered.

[GG]

Last Friday, the Obama administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stop Texas from executing Leal, asking the court to delay the execution for up to six months to give Congress time to consider legislation that would enforce the U.N. treaty.

 

Congress had three years to pass the bill but did not. Hence, it was impossible to pass a bill that would spare Leal unless a stay is ordered.

 

How is what you quoted different from Tom wrote?

[Gary M]

How is what you quoted different from Tom wrote?

 

If they have to pass legislation to enforce the treaty, Texas is well with in its power to execute him under "current" law.

 

Asking Texas to wait so they could pass new legislation is beyond the Presidents powers, and I believe that is what the SC said.

 

I agree with almost all of what Tom said , except that he inferred that they wanted to follow the current law, which I think they did. The intent here was to pass a new law to force Texas to do something more than they already did.

 

A Miranda Act for foriegn nationals

 

http://leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/BillText-ConsularNotificationComplianceAct.pdf

Edited July 8, 2011 by Gary M

[DC Tom]

If they have to pass legislation to enforce the treaty, Texas is well with in its power to execute him under "current" law.

 

Asking Texas to wait so they could pass new legislation is beyond the Presidents powers, and I believe that is what the SC said.

 

I agree with almost all of what Tom said , except that he inferred that they wanted to follow the current law, which I think they did. The intent here was to pass a new law to force Texas to do something more than they already did.

 

If Congress ratified the treaty, it is current law. An argument that they have to "consider legislation" to enforce the treaty (a 40-YEAR OLD treaty, no less) is completely asinine. And, unless he was barred from contact with the consulate, completely irrelevent - the Vienna agreement is explicitly clear that the onus of responsibility is on the consulate or the national. That is, a national can request consulate consultation, or the consulate can request contact with the national, and while the host nation cannot in any way hinder that if requested, there is nothing that puts them under any obligation to actively provide for it if unrequested. Ultimately, that fault lies with his public defenders, who were by all accounts were too stupid to practice law to begin with (one of his public defenders was suspended from practicing twice because of incompetence.

 

And the President didn't ask TX to wait...the President asked the SUPREME COURT to delay the execution. The White House was doing its job w/r/t international agreements we're party of; the Supremes did their job in ruling on it. All of which was entirely within the powers of the respective offices.

[Gary M]

If Congress ratified the treaty, it is current law. An argument that they have to "consider legislation" to enforce the treaty (a 40-YEAR OLD treaty, no less) is completely asinine. And, unless he was barred from contact with the consulate, completely irrelevent - the Vienna agreement is explicitly clear that the onus of responsibility is on the consulate or the national. That is, a national can request consulate consultation, or the consulate can request contact with the national, and while the host nation cannot in any way hinder that if requested, there is nothing that puts them under any obligation to actively provide for it if unrequested. Ultimately, that fault lies with his public defenders, who were by all accounts were too stupid to practice law to begin with (one of his public defenders was suspended from practicing twice because of incompetence.

 

And the President didn't ask TX to wait...the President asked the SUPREME COURT to delay the execution. The White House was doing its job w/r/t international agreements we're party of; the Supremes did their job in ruling on it. All of which was entirely within the powers of the respective offices.

 

Sorry I thought he also asked Perry to stay the execution.

[DC Tom]

Sorry I thought he also asked Perry to stay the execution.

 

Hey may have...still not outside his rights. He can ask anything he wants. Had he tried to force him, that would be a completely different issue.

[Gary M]

Hey may have...still not outside his rights. He can ask anything he wants.

 

 

I never said otherwise.

[UConn James]

If Congress ratified the treaty, it is current law. An argument that they have to "consider legislation" to enforce the treaty (a 40-YEAR OLD treaty, no less) is completely asinine. And, unless he was barred from contact with the consulate, completely irrelevent - the Vienna agreement is explicitly clear that the onus of responsibility is on the consulate or the national. That is, a national can request consulate consultation, or the consulate can request contact with the national, and while the host nation cannot in any way hinder that if requested, there is nothing that puts them under any obligation to actively provide for it if unrequested. Ultimately, that fault lies with his public defenders, who were by all accounts were too stupid to practice law to begin with (one of his public defenders was suspended from practicing twice because of incompetence.

 

Exactly.

 

I repeat my point from upthread:

 

So, they don't want to be treated like illegal immigrants by the police... until it might help them escape American justice.

 

The police don't have to tell you which avenues you have to pursue help in fighting charges. They are not your !@#$ing lawyers!!

 

He and his defense were not prevented from contacting the consulate. They just didn't do it.

 

Ignorance of what your rights are isn't an excuse to get a do-over after you've elected to not exercise those rights.

[DC Tom]

Ignorance of what your rights are isn't an excuse to get a do-over after you've elected to not exercise those rights.

 

You and I think that's clear. But don't forget how many people think that "rights" are things that are provided to you by the government.

 

I havent't checked the decision yet, but I'm betting four Supreme Court justices argued that.

[ieatcrayonz]

You and I think that's clear. But don't forget how many people think that "rights" are things that are provided to you by the government.

 

I havent't checked the decision yet, but I'm betting four Supreme Court justices argued that.

Does it seem ridiculous to anyone else that the guy moved to the US as a two year old and the discussion is based on the fact that he is a "Mexican national"? Shouldn't some common sense enter the equation at some point?