Im not exactly pro-death penalty, but with the advance in technology I might be able to be swayed. Thats not the issue here though, but yet that our favorite commies in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have been overturned once again.
"The most liberal, most activist bunch of judges in the country were reversed again by the Supreme Court of the United States. SCOTUS restored the death sentence of a California man who robbed and brutally murdered a young woman 25 years ago. (Yes, that's right folks, it can take a quarter century or more to carry out the death penalty!) In March 1981, Fernando Belmontes broke into the home of 19-year-old Steacy McConnell in Victor, California and clubbed her over the head as many as 20 times with a steel dumbbell bar, smashing her skull. He and fellow vicious thugs took her stereo and later sold it for $100. Just another reminder of why judicial nominations are of critical importance. Read more here."
courtesy of Laura Ingraham
yeah the same Laura Ingraham that digs me
2 comments:
Of course Ingraham could have just as easily said “The most liberal, most activist bunch of judges in the country were reversed again by the most conservative, most activist judges in the country”. And this wasn’t about turning some murder out in the street, but a point of law about instructions to the jury…that anyone who has an interest in justice might want clarified. Unless you’re a big fan of executions, I’d say there isn’t much here to be exalted about. The guy is going to spend the rest of his life (as well he should) in prison no matter what the outcome.
Laura Ingraham personally told me she wouldn't bang you with Rhino's Johnson.
You are correct. We are talking about a point of law. I could care less if this guy rots or dies.
What concerns me is when a court of law pulls this crap...
"Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Richard Paez, both of Los Angeles, concluded there was a "reasonable probability" that jurors would have spared Belmontes had they been free to consider evidence of his "future conduct" behind bars. Reinhardt believed the instructions told jurors to look back at the crime and not look at evidence showing Belmontes "would adapt well to prison."
and thats a problem how???
We need judges not fuckin fortune tellers.
...and I wouldnt exactly call a 5-4 ruling "the most conservative, most activist judges in the country” ...but were getting there
Post a Comment