Alabama Justice Won't Remove Commandments - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

sipsake · 08-19-2003, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by j8ear
This is completely absurd. There is no gaurantee constitutionally on inclusion. NONE WHAT SO EVER.

The people it doesn't represent? Are you so obsessed with diversity and inclusiveness that you discount our own human history on the alter of political correctness? Incorrect, inappropriate, socially detrimental, unconstitutional political correctness?

Your argument makes no sense.

The Bill of Rights was formed to protect the minority from the majority. It is, by it's very essence, a document based on diversity and inclusiveness.

"Political correctness" is a buzzword. It's a catch-phrase people use to turn what have always been considered human virtues into something objectionable.

You imply that diversity and inclusiveness are incorrect, inappropriate, socially detrimental and unconstitutional. It seems the alternative would be a society lacking diversity in which chosen segments would be excluded from participation in government by the ruling class.

If nothing else, doesn't our Declaration of Independance and Constitution cry out against that form of government?

lurkette · 08-19-2003, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by j8ear
This is completely absurd. There is no gaurantee constitutionally on inclusion. NONE WHAT SO EVER.

I'm not talking about a guarantee on inclusion - where'd you get that from? I said that the commandments might be appropriate in a display of multiple sources, not that multiple sources should be guaranteed display.

Quote:

The people it doesn't represent? Are you so obsessed with diversity and inclusiveness that you discount our own human history on the alter of political correctness? Incorrect, inappropriate, socially detrimental, unconstitutional political correctness?

Oh, calm down. This isn't about human history (see below). It's about refusing to set one religious text, regardless of how widely it is accepted, above others; and about keeping religion separate from the practice of civil government.

In terms of inclusiveness, yes, I would like to be sure that every American, regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof, is included in a fair and impartial legal system. The minute you bring Christianity into it you exclude 20+% of the population (see below).

And as far as the 10 commandments representing "human history," roughly 57% of the world's population are either Christian, Muslim or Jewish. That leaves another 43% for whom the 10 commandments have nothing to do with their history.

(http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html)

And if we're just talking about the United States, about 78.3% consider themselves Christian, Muslim or Jewish, which leaves another 21.7% (more than 1/5 of the population, which I would consider significant) who do not.
(http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org...0Big%20Picture)

And whether it's part of our history or not, it has no place as a religious display, I'll state again, in a house of law in a secular democracy.

Quote:

Oh and just to clarify...I wouldn't give a hoot what was posted on the walls or illuminated under spot lights. Not one single inkling of caring in the least.

Well goody for you. Just because you aren't bothered doesn't mean that other people should not be, nor that we should use your personal standards as the guideline for public policy.

Kadath · 08-19-2003, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by j8ear
This is completely absurd. There is no gaurantee constitutionally on inclusion. NONE WHAT SO EVER.

The people it doesn't represent? Are you so obsessed with diversity and inclusiveness that you discount our own human history on the alter of political correctness? Incorrect, inappropriate, socially detrimental, unconstitutional political correctness?

So...who gives a damn about all the new people in the country or its changing makeup, let's stick with what we were made from, rather than adapt?

Quote:

Originally posted by j8ear
Oh and just to clarify...I wouldn't give a hoot what was posted on the walls or illuminated under spot lights. Not one single inkling of caring in the least.

Good thing you don't make the laws, then, because the laws aren't what's best for j8ear. They're supposed to be what's best for everyone.

Quote:

Originally posted by j8ear
I see very little AKA cohesion in your assertions.

j8ear, remember that talk we had about slipping into incoherency?

Quote:

Originally posted by j8ear
No ones talking about heaven or hell but you. I disagree that personal behaviour shouldn't be regulated. They are, always have been and always will be. There are somethings that shouldn't be, and are, somethings that should, which aren't. Deal with it. You were mistaken in your assesment of the ten commandments applicablity to our legal system. Completed and profoundly mistaken. We've largely moved on.

So, your idea wins, the end, huh? And who is this "we" who've moved on? Are you letting Mr. Wiggles in on this conversation?

Quote:

Originally posted by j8ear
Such narrow minded interpretations. It is bigger then god damn or jesus christ. Do you tell them to fuck off or to eat the peanuts out of your shit? Never mind. It doesn't matter. If you want to argue in this fashion: well this one is, but wait not like that, but like this, and that part is stupid, because this says that....you go on having fun with it. I'm not interested.

If you have difficulty seeing how the ten commandments are very applicable to our everyday lives, LEGALLY and Secularly, I'm not sure I can help.

See, now you're just being dimissive and rude. Stop it.

Quote:

Originally posted by j8ear
That is not federal law. Sorry. It's interpretation of federal law, and is overturned, re-interpreted, and re-applied routinely. And federal LAW is NOT above state law. Federal Law trumps state law in circumstances ONLY where constitutionally provided OR when state law is deemed in violation of the constitution. That's it.

-bear

And you're a constitutional scholar, right?

archer2371 · 08-19-2003, 12:06 PM

For the times, Jefferson wasn't what most would call a devout Christian. He was Unitarian. By all means, he was a good guy, and I am glad we had a guy like him to help form our nation. What bear and I are saying is that the courts have all of a sudden based many decisions on something that isn't even in the Constitution. The courts are even violating the Constitution by restricting the free practices of Christianity avidly in the past 50+ years. It's not right to restrict any practice of religion unless the said religion is endangering the lives of others. Here's a few examples of the absurdity of the courts:
A prosecuting attorney mentions seven words from the Bible in a courtroom-the statement lasted less than five seconds-a jury sentence was overturned for a man convicted of brutally clubbing a 71-year-old woman to death. Commonwealth v. Chambers

In a high-school class in Dickson, Tennessee, students were required to write a research paper using at least four sources. Despite the fact that the students were allowed to write about reincarnation, witchcraft, and the occult, because student Brittney Settle chose to write her paper about the life of Jesus Christ, she was given a zero by the teacher. Britney Kay Settle v. Dickson County School Board

In Omaha, Nebraska, a student was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time, or even to open his Bible in school. Gierke v. Blotzer

I don't know about you, but doesn't this restrict the free exercise of religion?

O.K. Commonwealth v. Chambers

Settle v. Dickson County School Board

The_Dude · 08-19-2003, 12:20 PM

Quote:

That is not federal law. Sorry. It's interpretation of federal law, and is overturned, re-interpreted, and re-applied routinely. And federal LAW is NOT above state law. Federal Law trumps state law in circumstances ONLY where constitutionally provided OR when state law is deemed in violation of the constitution. That's it.

when there are cases of dual jurisdiction (like this case), fed law is above state law. the fed court wouldnt have taken this case if they didnt have jurisdiction.

Quote:

You were mistaken in your assesment of the ten commandments applicablity to our legal system

hmm...i think you agreed that the commandments very mostly relevant to civil issues.

-------------

and archer, i tried searching for those cases, but couldnt come up with anything. google came up with one link for " gierke blotzer " and the site wasnt very credible and pretty much said exactly what u said word by word.

can you link me to those cases?

sipsake · 08-19-2003, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by archer2371
For the times, Jefferson wasn't what most would call a devout Christian. He was Unitarian.

Again, I have to disagree. Jefferson was a devout Christian. He was the author of The Jefferson Bible - The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels. His long correspondence with John Adams is filled with religious discussion.

Also, he was not a member of the Unitarian Church.

From the Unitarian Universalist Website:
"Like many others of his time (he died just one year after the founding of institutional Unitarianism in America), Jefferson was a Unitarian in theology, though not in church membership. He never joined a Unitarian congregation: there were none near his home in Virginia during his lifetime. He regularly attended Joseph Priestley's Pennsylvania church when he was nearby, and said that Priestley's theology was his own, and there is no doubt Priestley should be identified as Unitarian. Jefferson remained a member of the Episcopal congregation near his home, but removed himself from those available to become godparents, because he was not sufficiently in agreement with the trinitarian theology."

Thomas Jefferson was a man who immersed himself in theology and religious thought. His beliefs may have not been the mainstream, but to suggest that he was not a particularly religious man just isn't true.

archer2371 · 08-19-2003, 12:24 PM

Thanks for clearing that up sipsake.

shadowless · 08-19-2003, 12:31 PM

Things like dont kill, dont steal, dont commit adultery, honor your mother and father shouldnt threaten people. Even if you were to look at it constitutionally, the bill of rights says no establishment of religion. It didnt exclude religion from government. It said no specific religion can be established. And on a practical note, why are liberals always afraid of something as small as a bible verse or the ten commandments?
And to sipsake i say this, Jefferson was not a christian. If you read in history he was what was known as a deist. Deists believe that god created the earth but God is now indifferent and doesnt work at all today.

Bill O'Rights · 08-19-2003, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by archer2371
The courts are even violating the Constitution by restricting the free practices of Christianity avidly in the past 50+ years.

No one is suggesting the restriction of the free practices of Christianity...only the craming of it down our throats. Unless of course craming it down our throats is the free practice of Chritianity

Quote:

Originally posted by archer2371
In a high-school class in Dickson, Tennessee, students were required to write a research paper using at least four sources. Despite the fact that the students were allowed to write about reincarnation, witchcraft, and the occult, because student Brittney Settle chose to write her paper about the life of Jesus Christ, she was given a zero by the teacher. Britney Kay Settle v. Dickson County School Board

I'm sorry, but you failed to provide the reason that she received a "0". Was her work sub-par? Your source (The Power Point presentation "The Judiciary: Then and Now") fails to mention it.

Quote:

Originally posted by archer2371
In Omaha, Nebraska, a student was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time, or even to open his Bible in school. Gierke v. Blotzer

Yeah...I remember this from 1989. (I live in "Bible Belt" Omaha)The student was not sitting quietly, reading his Bible. He was causing a disruption, in the classroom, by boisterously drawing attention to himself and prosteletizing (sp). He pointed out how he was "saved" because unlike his classmates, he chose to read the Bible. The teacher confiscated it (because the kid was causing a disruption), which started a maelstrom in the press. Blah blah blah...the rest of the story.

sipsake · 08-19-2003, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shadowless

And to sipsake i say this, Jefferson was not a christian. If you read in history he was what was known as a deist. Deists believe that god created the earth but God is now indifferent and doesnt work at all today.

The Christian right levels this charge at Jefferson from time to time, I think in an attempt to discredit him in some way.

In a wonderful example of "how some things never change" because his personal beliefs did not conform to those of the mainstream church (he rejected the doctrine of the trinity, and therefore rejected the notion that Jesus WAS God; he did not believe in the New Testament miracles ascribed to Jesus; he believed the Book of Revelation was the raving of a lunatic) he could not possibly be a Christian.

This is ridiculous.

Jefferson was a lifelong Christian who believed that Christ was a saviour who brought to mankind a "system of morality was the most benevolent and sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the antient philosophers." (Ltr. to Joseph Priestly, Apr. 9, 1803.)"

Here's another quote for you.

A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen. It is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus—very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its Author never said nor saw.
TJ to Charles Thomson (9 Jan. 1816), Bergh 14:385-86.

and another...

My views of [the Christian religion] are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be—sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others.
TJ to Dr. Benjamin Rush (2l Apr. l803), Bergh 10:379-80.

Now show me why you think he's a deist.

sipsake · 08-19-2003, 01:15 PM

The_Dude & Bill O'Rights

Settle vs Dickson County School Board

http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/courses/eol469/cases/Settle.html

The_Dude · 08-19-2003, 01:21 PM

i quote from sipsake's link

Quote:

In her statement at a hearing[**4] before the School Board, and in depositions taken for the litigation of this case, Ms. Ramsey has explained that she refused to allow plaintiff's topic for a combination of reasons. First, she stated that the student had failed to receive permission to write on the topic prior to handing in the outline. Because plaintiff did not adhere to the requirement of submitting her topic for her teacher's approval, she had to choose another topic.

Second, Ms. Ramsey said that she believed that it would be difficult for her to evaluate a research paper on a topic related to Jesus Christ. She stated that she knew that plaintiff had a strong personal belief in Christianity that would make it difficult for her to write a dispassionate research paper. Furthermore, Ms. Ramsey believed that the paper would be difficult to grade because plaintiff might take any criticisms of the paper too personally. Even remarks regarding grammar or organization might be misinterpreted as criticisms of plaintiff's religious beliefs. Ms. Ramsey thought it would be wiser to avoid such potential misunderstandings.

Third, the teacher indicated that she "just knew that we don't deal with personal religion -- personal[**5] religious beliefs. It's just not an appropriate thing to do in a public school. . . People don't send their children to school for a teacher to get in a dialogue with personal religious beliefs. They send them to learn to read and write and think. And you can do that without getting into personal religion." (J.A. at 57).

Fourth, the teacher felt that because plaintiff knew a lot about Jesus Christ, she could produce an outline without doing any significant research, and thus defeat the purpose of the exercise. The teacher stated "it was a lot easier to write a quick little preliminary outline on Jesus Christ, which she knew a lot about, which most of my students knew a lot about." (J.A. at 57-58). Further, she said that part of the purpose of the paper was to have the students research a paper on a subject with which they were unfamiliar. (J.A. at 70).

Fifth, Ms. Ramsey at one point during her testimony before the School Board stated "the law says we are not to deal with religious issues in the classroom." (J.A. at 222). She seems to have thought that she should not allow plaintiff to write on the topic of her choice because the law may prohibit this kind of religious paper in public[**6] school classrooms.

Sixth, while testifying before the school board, Ms. Ramsey also stated that she rejected the topic because the assignment required the use of four sources and that "all of the sources that you [are] going to find documenting the life of Jesus Christ derive from one source, the Bible." (J.A. at 221). She seems to have meant primary or original sources, but during a previous deposition she said she allowed secondary sources: "I required that they have two books and two encyclopedias or resources, but they could[*155] substitute using magazine articles or pamphlets." (J.A. at 38).

lol, that's way more than enough reasons not to let the student write about the life of jesus christ.

archer2371 · 08-19-2003, 01:29 PM

Well, she didn't get the approval from the teacher. The teacher however could have just left it at that. She goes on to state things about how you can't mention Christ and how it's inappropriate to do so. That's what concerns me about that particular ruling. That part is a violation of the First Amendment, not the rejection of the idea of the paper. Although it is rather circumspect that the teacher allowed others to research religious matters. The teacher was also mistaken that you can only get information about Christ from the Bible. There are many books and articles about the historical significance of Christ, and I believe you can approach this topic in a research paper and do it well. As long as you can support your statements with sources. I feel that the teacher was out of line in assuming that the girl couldn't be objective without seeing her complete work. However, I'm not an appellate judge, nor am I teacher, so my opinion doesn't really matter now does it?

The_Dude · 08-19-2003, 01:57 PM

i dont see any relevance to the first ammendment or the constitution in the case. the teacher denied the chance to do the research in the best interest of the child.

archer2371 · 08-19-2003, 06:18 PM

She hadn't seen all of her work yet, how can she know the "best interest of the child" the only people that know the best interests of children are their parents (and sometimes the child). I have no problem with saying that you don't think the idea will work well, that's no biggie. The problem I have is that the teacher just said straight up that you're not supposed to be talking about God or Christ. That's just flat out wrong. There are other reasons that a teacher can give like "There probably aren't enough sources out there," or "It's hard to take an objective viewpoint on that issue," (which Ms. Ramsey said) but she could have left it at that and not pursued the "No God" position. Granted, the girl probably had no constitutional claim, if she had one, it was a very small one. This is a hard one for me, because I understand where the teacher is coming from, but I also understand where the girl is coming from. And telling someone that they shouldn't talk about Christ just because it might "offend" someone (even though the paper would have only been seen by the teacher, the student, and the student's parents), just doesn't sit well with me. Anything you say can offend someone, but people need to not take things personally so much. White supremesists offend me, yet so do black supremesists. Male supremesists offend me, yet so do female supremesists. There will be something out there that will offend someone, to try to eliminate them all is folly and irresponsible.

Oh, and about that middle of the night thing, the time was 9:30 and the delivery company was expected at 6:00 (all times PM). 9:30 hardly seems like the deep black of night to me, the sun had only set about 30-40 minutes prior.

I was trying to show the absurdities of the courts, letting a guy who beats an old lady to death off because a prosecutor quotes the Bible is irresponsible and dumb. To declare that a cross on a headstone in a cemetery "unconstitutional" is ridiculous. And quite a few other things that are just mindboggling when the courts base a decision on something that isn't even written down in the Constitution.

The_Dude · 08-19-2003, 07:13 PM

i'd like to point out again that the girl did NOT ask for permission to do this paper, like the other kids.

and this appears to me to be the best explanation

Quote:

it was a lot easier to write a quick little preliminary outline on Jesus Christ, which she knew a lot about, which most of my students knew a lot about."

the kid already knew hell of a lot (couldnt help that one

) about christianity and jesus. so, she (the kid) could easily write up the paper w/o doing much research. the purpose of the assignment was to teach the kids to do proper research and writing about something she already knew about would negate the meaning of the assigment.

smooth · 08-19-2003, 07:16 PM

Well, I read both cases you cited and neither support your claim.

The first was is quite clear.

The second one didn't overturn the juries conviction--it upheld it. The only thing the case mentions is that the original case was sent back for resentencing due to inappropriate language (from an impartial agent of the state--the prosecutor). The man was still sentenced to death, BTW. His conviction was never overturned.

08-19-2003, 12:06 PM	#84 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	For the times, Jefferson wasn't what most would call a devout Christian. He was Unitarian. By all means, he was a good guy, and I am glad we had a guy like him to help form our nation. What bear and I are saying is that the courts have all of a sudden based many decisions on something that isn't even in the Constitution. The courts are even violating the Constitution by restricting the free practices of Christianity avidly in the past 50+ years. It's not right to restrict any practice of religion unless the said religion is endangering the lives of others. Here's a few examples of the absurdity of the courts: A prosecuting attorney mentions seven words from the Bible in a courtroom-the statement lasted less than five seconds-a jury sentence was overturned for a man convicted of brutally clubbing a 71-year-old woman to death. Commonwealth v. Chambers In a high-school class in Dickson, Tennessee, students were required to write a research paper using at least four sources. Despite the fact that the students were allowed to write about reincarnation, witchcraft, and the occult, because student Brittney Settle chose to write her paper about the life of Jesus Christ, she was given a zero by the teacher. Britney Kay Settle v. Dickson County School Board In Omaha, Nebraska, a student was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time, or even to open his Bible in school. Gierke v. Blotzer I don't know about you, but doesn't this restrict the free exercise of religion? O.K. Commonwealth v. Chambers Settle v. Dickson County School Board __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif." Last edited by archer2371; 08-19-2003 at 12:56 PM..

08-19-2003, 12:24 PM	#87 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Thanks for clearing that up sipsake. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

08-19-2003, 12:31 PM	#88 (permalink)
shadowless Upright	Things like dont kill, dont steal, dont commit adultery, honor your mother and father shouldnt threaten people. Even if you were to look at it constitutionally, the bill of rights says no establishment of religion. It didnt exclude religion from government. It said no specific religion can be established. And on a practical note, why are liberals always afraid of something as small as a bible verse or the ten commandments? And to sipsake i say this, Jefferson was not a christian. If you read in history he was what was known as a deist. Deists believe that god created the earth but God is now indifferent and doesnt work at all today. Last edited by shadowless; 08-19-2003 at 12:36 PM..

08-19-2003, 01:15 PM	#91 (permalink)
sipsake Psycho Location: Memphis	The_Dude & Bill O'Rights Settle vs Dickson County School Board http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/courses/eol469/cases/Settle.html __________________ When life hands you a lemon, say "Oh yeah, I like lemons. What else you got?" Henry Rollins

08-19-2003, 01:29 PM	#93 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Well, she didn't get the approval from the teacher. The teacher however could have just left it at that. She goes on to state things about how you can't mention Christ and how it's inappropriate to do so. That's what concerns me about that particular ruling. That part is a violation of the First Amendment, not the rejection of the idea of the paper. Although it is rather circumspect that the teacher allowed others to research religious matters. The teacher was also mistaken that you can only get information about Christ from the Bible. There are many books and articles about the historical significance of Christ, and I believe you can approach this topic in a research paper and do it well. As long as you can support your statements with sources. I feel that the teacher was out of line in assuming that the girl couldn't be objective without seeing her complete work. However, I'm not an appellate judge, nor am I teacher, so my opinion doesn't really matter now does it? __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

08-19-2003, 01:57 PM	#94 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i dont see any relevance to the first ammendment or the constitution in the case. the teacher denied the chance to do the research in the best interest of the child. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

08-19-2003, 06:18 PM	#95 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	She hadn't seen all of her work yet, how can she know the "best interest of the child" the only people that know the best interests of children are their parents (and sometimes the child). I have no problem with saying that you don't think the idea will work well, that's no biggie. The problem I have is that the teacher just said straight up that you're not supposed to be talking about God or Christ. That's just flat out wrong. There are other reasons that a teacher can give like "There probably aren't enough sources out there," or "It's hard to take an objective viewpoint on that issue," (which Ms. Ramsey said) but she could have left it at that and not pursued the "No God" position. Granted, the girl probably had no constitutional claim, if she had one, it was a very small one. This is a hard one for me, because I understand where the teacher is coming from, but I also understand where the girl is coming from. And telling someone that they shouldn't talk about Christ just because it might "offend" someone (even though the paper would have only been seen by the teacher, the student, and the student's parents), just doesn't sit well with me. Anything you say can offend someone, but people need to not take things personally so much. White supremesists offend me, yet so do black supremesists. Male supremesists offend me, yet so do female supremesists. There will be something out there that will offend someone, to try to eliminate them all is folly and irresponsible. Oh, and about that middle of the night thing, the time was 9:30 and the delivery company was expected at 6:00 (all times PM). 9:30 hardly seems like the deep black of night to me, the sun had only set about 30-40 minutes prior. I was trying to show the absurdities of the courts, letting a guy who beats an old lady to death off because a prosecutor quotes the Bible is irresponsible and dumb. To declare that a cross on a headstone in a cemetery "unconstitutional" is ridiculous. And quite a few other things that are just mindboggling when the courts base a decision on something that isn't even written down in the Constitution. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

08-19-2003, 07:16 PM	#97 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Well, I read both cases you cited and neither support your claim. The first was is quite clear. The second one didn't overturn the juries conviction--it upheld it. The only thing the case mentions is that the original case was sent back for resentencing due to inappropriate language (from an impartial agent of the state--the prosecutor). The man was still sentenced to death, BTW. His conviction was never overturned. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman