Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

schadenfreude wrote:...no man can pardon a corpse.

I can.


...or I could just make a joke about necromancy.

A state has the right to inflict punishment on a criminal as long as it follows due process.

Nobody's debating that this gak murdered that girl, that seems to be beyond doubt.

The problem is, if you permit a state to skip one stage of the legal process (yes, I know, it's part of a treaty rather than state law) then what's to stop them missing out another part? And another?

You only have the moral right to uphold the law when you yourself adhere to it fully.

Ahtman wrote:I think the president only has pardon power, not the power to change sentencing or charges. Even then I'm not all that familiar with the process (not even considering the political considerations) that would be required.

Nah, he could reduce a sentence:

"The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment"

schadenfreude wrote:Ooops the charges were all state charges, I'm too used to dealing with ua knuckleheads up on federal charges. My comment would have been valid if he was convicted in a murder conspiracy under the rico act, but he wasn't, and its all a real moot point now because no man can pardon a corpse.

If he had been indicted on federal charges, then this would have been a different story. I believe there is federal law requiring consular access for foreign defendants.

Also, not exactly. While pardoning a corpse isn't illegal, the practical effect is probably minimal

Miraclefish wrote:A state has the right to inflict punishment on a criminal as long as it follows due process.

Nobody's debating that this gak murdered that girl, that seems to be beyond doubt.

The problem is, if you permit a state to skip one stage of the legal process (yes, I know, it's part of a treaty rather than state law) then what's to stop them missing out another part? And another?

You only have the moral right to uphold the law when you yourself adhere to it fully.

Did you again miss the part where Texas DID follow all the Due Process they had to, and that even the Supreme Court agrees? What part did they skip that you are upset about? What part did they not adhere to fully?

Either deal with the fact that in the system as it exists, Texas did everything it had to do, or don't. But you can't make stuff up and expect it to stick.

they injected that horrible person with "blue juice" and now hes sleepin with the fishes, good riddance

Yep.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/07/08/humberto_leal_mexican_national_executed_in_texas_over_obama_s_ob.html

He's gone, and the world isn't worse off for it.
Basically, the Law was followed, the only problem was Obama and Mexico asking for a temporary reprieve to allow Congress to decide on a new law which would make consular access mandatory. The Supreme Court ruled against Obama, stating that they were to rule on current laws, not potential laws. Entirely justified.

CptJake wrote:

Miraclefish wrote:A state has the right to inflict punishment on a criminal as long as it follows due process.

Nobody's debating that this gak murdered that girl, that seems to be beyond doubt.

The problem is, if you permit a state to skip one stage of the legal process (yes, I know, it's part of a treaty rather than state law) then what's to stop them missing out another part? And another?

You only have the moral right to uphold the law when you yourself adhere to it fully.

Did you again miss the part where Texas DID follow all the Due Process they had to, and that even the Supreme Court agrees? What part did they skip that you are upset about? What part did they not adhere to fully?

Either deal with the fact that in the system as it exists, Texas did everything it had to do, or don't. But you can't make stuff up and expect it to stick.

The bit where he wasn't informed about his right to contact the consulate, granted by international treaty.

Obama should have known that Texas would have done the exact opposite of what he wanted so he shoudl have said to execute him if he actually wanted him to live. maybe thats why Obama said to let him live,to look good for other countries, and the guy still gets executed. well played obama

Miraclefish wrote:

CptJake wrote:

Miraclefish wrote:A state has the right to inflict punishment on a criminal as long as it follows due process.

Nobody's debating that this gak murdered that girl, that seems to be beyond doubt.

The problem is, if you permit a state to skip one stage of the legal process (yes, I know, it's part of a treaty rather than state law) then what's to stop them missing out another part? And another?

You only have the moral right to uphold the law when you yourself adhere to it fully.

Did you again miss the part where Texas DID follow all the Due Process they had to, and that even the Supreme Court agrees? What part did they skip that you are upset about? What part did they not adhere to fully?

Either deal with the fact that in the system as it exists, Texas did everything it had to do, or don't. But you can't make stuff up and expect it to stick.

The bit where he wasn't informed about his right to contact the consulate, granted by international treaty.

Which isn't law, it's a potential law, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas followed procedure to the letter. This whole thing about he should have been granted consular access because that's what the law says is wrong, that's not what it says. The treaty, which is yet to be decided upon by congress holds no sway on official procedures. Read the link I posted.

Miraclefish wrote:

CptJake wrote:

Miraclefish wrote:A state has the right to inflict punishment on a criminal as long as it follows due process.

Nobody's debating that this gak murdered that girl, that seems to be beyond doubt.

The problem is, if you permit a state to skip one stage of the legal process (yes, I know, it's part of a treaty rather than state law) then what's to stop them missing out another part? And another?

You only have the moral right to uphold the law when you yourself adhere to it fully.

Did you again miss the part where Texas DID follow all the Due Process they had to, and that even the Supreme Court agrees? What part did they skip that you are upset about? What part did they not adhere to fully?

Either deal with the fact that in the system as it exists, Texas did everything it had to do, or don't. But you can't make stuff up and expect it to stick.

The bit where he wasn't informed about his right to contact the consulate, granted by international treaty.

See bolded parts you must have missed the first time.

biccat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I think the president only has pardon power, not the power to change sentencing or charges. Even then I'm not all that familiar with the process (not even considering the political considerations) that would be required.

Nah, he could reduce a sentence:

"The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment"

Ah yes, that is right.

Well he's toast.

Burn in hell, and tell em Texas sent you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:

Frazzled wrote: He's an illegal alien who came here...

At the age of two... after spending (practically) his whole life here in the US can you really blame him for not heading back to Mexico? (What a silly question I've just asked... I know you can )

I have no problem with that. We treated him just like you would like, like an American citizen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Miraclefish wrote:A state has the right to inflict punishment on a criminal as long as it follows due process.

Nobody's debating that this gak murdered that girl, that seems to be beyond doubt.

The problem is, if you permit a state to skip one stage of the legal process (yes, I know, it's part of a treaty rather than state law) then what's to stop them missing out another part? And another?

You only have the moral right to uphold the law when you yourself adhere to it fully.

Nothing was skipped. Its not part of the process until there is an actual law, until then its just foreigners talking hot air.

I thought illegals had the same rights as citizens (and are subject to the same ramifications of crime), or is it when they're on death row that they revert back to being illegal?

Where I'm at illegals get in-state tuition rates.

that makes me mad...

sebster wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Can't say I'm sorry.

Also, what did the paper mean by Conservative vs Liberal judges in the court's decision? Surely the role of a Judge is to rule on the law, not deal with politics.

Judicial appointments get made by the political party that has power at that particular point in time. As the two parties have become increasingly stratified over certain issues, so judges have typically tended to vote along those lines.

This has resulted in a lot of recent prominent decisions being ruled along down party lines. For instance, four courts ruled on the constitutionality of healthcare reform, the two Republican appointed judges found parts of it unconstitutional, the two democrat appointed judges found it constitutional.

That sounds incredibly stupid. How is this in any way in line with the seperation of powers?

Granted Australia has both it's own precedent and English law to fall back on, but I've never heard it said our judges have such clearly-set political views. This goes beyond interpreting the law into re-interpreting it to mean whatever suits the political goal of their party.

You guys have a different system, and while i will not deny that our judges do seem to be very politically influenced, is it possible to a truly "unbiased" judge who does not allow their opinions to influence them at all?

dajobe wrote:You guys have a different system, and while i will not deny that our judges do seem to be very politically influenced, is it possible to a truly "unbiased" judge who does not allow their opinions to influence them at all?

Of course not, Judges are human beings after all. An emotional trial is less likely to affect them than a jury but it can influence them, in the same way that the accussed showing disrespect will not go down well.

It's completely different to having heavily politicised judges. Judges should rule on the law, not re-interpret it to suit whatever political goal their respective party is after.

the judges always interperet what they see to be within the constituition. Its just some have opinions that cause them to lean one way and look at certain laws certain ways.

and sorry, didnt read the entire passage you were quoting before, whoever said that was wrong, the president nominates the judges and the senate/house approve. But the president almost always does nominate within his party.

and seperation of powers deals with seperation between branches of the govt, not parties. And although appointed by someone, once in office, the judges are there for life and dont have to worry re election so dont have to worry about public approval much, and get to judge based on their opinions.

There are two types of judges; constructionists who are the literal judges and don't try to interpret the laws in funny ways and polygamists who are told the law several different ways.

halonachos wrote:There are two types of judges; constructionists who are the literal judges and don't try to interpret the laws in funny ways and polygamists who are told the law several different ways.

There are other ways to break down the justices. For example, in certain cases you can reliably predict Scalia and Ginsburg to be on the same side and Roberts and Kagan (well, most of the newer justices) opposing.

It's all about judicial philosophy, and conservative/liberal isn't the only "dividing line."

I think all parties here acted correctly, despite the fact it forced them into conflict:

Texas was correct in sentencing him to death, assuming you believe in the death penalty. His crime was heinous and his innocence not in any real dispute.
Texas was correct in not offering him consular access since he never stated he was a Mexican national.
Mexico correctly pointed out he may not have had a fair trial for lack of said consular access.
Obama correct asked Texas to delay (not "stop", as the incorrect headline states) the execution. Enforcing federal treaty obligations are indisputably the purview of the Executive branch.
The Supremes correctly ruled that the execution could go forth, since Congress had plenty of time to codify the legislation required from the binding ICC ruling.
Texas executed him lawfully as all of his appeals had been exhausted.

The only interesting part of this case, really, is that there are so many angles available for people to flog their varied political biases on. You want to claim Obama is a power hungry despot? You can. You want to claim that Texas loves executing people, even unlawfully? You can do that too. You want to argue Texas only pushed this so hard because Rick Perry might run against Obama in 2012? That's also available. In some ways this case is like a political Rorschach test.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

dajobe wrote:You guys have a different system, and while i will not deny that our judges do seem to be very politically influenced, is it possible to a truly "unbiased" judge who does not allow their opinions to influence them at all?

Of course not, Judges are human beings after all. An emotional trial is less likely to affect them than a jury but it can influence them, in the same way that the accussed showing disrespect will not go down well.

It's completely different to having heavily politicised judges. Judges should rule on the law, not re-interpret it to suit whatever political goal their respective party is after.

You have them. you just don't realize it. Our crappy system came from your crappy system.

dajobe wrote:the judges always interperet what they see to be within the constituition. Its just some have opinions that cause them to lean one way and look at certain laws certain ways.

and sorry, didnt read the entire passage you were quoting before, whoever said that was wrong, the president nominates the judges and the senate/house approve. But the president almost always does nominate within his party.

So where is the judicial independance? Why are judges being selected based on their political leanings rather than their competence?

and seperation of powers deals with seperation between branches of the govt, not parties. And although appointed by someone, once in office, the judges are there for life and dont have to worry re election so dont have to worry about public approval much, and get to judge based on their opinions.

I don't know what they teach you in the US, but the Seperation of Powers is about keeping the Executive, Legislative and Judicial arms seperate. Here in Australia the Executive and Legislative arms are pretty inter-twined, but the Judicial arm has always been kept seperate. I would think not doing so would be very dangerous. That said, Australian judges also have more precedent to draw on than the US, as Aus Judges can apply English law to new cases if there is no Australian authority, and these questions of law often lead to conflicting decisions between judges. But I've never heard of judges being divided on political grounds here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

dajobe wrote:You guys have a different system, and while i will not deny that our judges do seem to be very politically influenced, is it possible to a truly "unbiased" judge who does not allow their opinions to influence them at all?

Of course not, Judges are human beings after all. An emotional trial is less likely to affect them than a jury but it can influence them, in the same way that the accussed showing disrespect will not go down well.

It's completely different to having heavily politicised judges. Judges should rule on the law, not re-interpret it to suit whatever political goal their respective party is after.

You have them. you just don't realize it. Our crappy system came from your crappy system.

http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/education-monographs-1/monograph1/fbmason.htm

Judicial independance is taken pretty seriously here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:I think all parties here acted correctly, despite the fact it forced them into conflict:

Texas was correct in sentencing him to death, assuming you believe in the death penalty. His crime was heinous and his innocence not in any real dispute.
Texas was correct in not offering him consular access since he never stated he was a Mexican national.
Mexico correctly pointed out he may not have had a fair trial for lack of said consular access.
Obama correct asked Texas to delay (not "stop", as the incorrect headline states) the execution. Enforcing federal treaty obligations are indisputably the purview of the Executive branch.
The Supremes correctly ruled that the execution could go forth, since Congress had plenty of time to codify the legislation required from the binding ICC ruling.
Texas executed him lawfully as all of his appeals had been exhausted.

The only interesting part of this case, really, is that there are so many angles available for people to flog their varied political biases on. You want to claim Obama is a power hungry despot? You can. You want to claim that Texas loves executing people, even unlawfully? You can do that too. You want to argue Texas only pushed this so hard because Rick Perry might run against Obama in 2012? That's also available. In some ways this case is like a political Rorschach test.

Very nice summary of the situation. I believe I agree with you.

I'm still concerned as to how the Supreme Court came to their decision, and why it was divided on a party basis rather than a question of law (which still would have seen the result in allowing the execution to continue.)

CptJake wrote:Does it matter to all you folks claiming Due Process was violated that even the US Supreme Court thought Texas was in the right?

The Supreme Court has said it has no authority to enforce the US treaties upon Texas' domestic matters. Which is correct and fits with precedent, but it doesn't mean Texas is in the right, because there's a big difference between 'we can't enforce Federal Treaties on Texas' and 'it is good for a state to decide what basic elements of due process it would like to acknowledge, decided on a case by case basis'.

When the Supreme Court reviews the case and issues a statement like

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.

it is hard to claim Due Process was not followed, if you have a clue as to what Due Process actually means.

You've failed to understand what the Supreme Court has said. They said there was no Federal authority to enforce the treaty obligation. That's it, nothing more. It didn't comment on the actual case, it just said it had no authority to intervene.

By your subsequent conclusion, anything where the Federal constitution can't intervene is due process and fair. Which is silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Granted Australia has both it's own precedent and English law to fall back on, but I've never heard it said our judges have such clearly-set political views.

The US also has precedent, and if you go back far enough they've got English there as well. There's really nothing in our system stopping the same happening here, except a culture in our political parties to support indepedant judiciaries.

This goes beyond interpreting the law into re-interpreting it to mean whatever suits the political goal of their party.

Well, it isn't that bad. It isn't as though every decision is decided based on party loyalty... most cases remain non-political afterall. It's just on divisive political issues the judges are, more and more, lining up along party lines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dajobe wrote:You guys have a different system, and while i will not deny that our judges do seem to be very politically influenced, is it possible to a truly "unbiased" judge who does not allow their opinions to influence them at all?

There is a pretty marked difference between bias drawn from personal beliefs, and bias drawn from political loyalties.

Frazzled wrote:
Nothing was skipped. Its not part of the process until there is an actual law, until then its just foreigners talking hot air.

Yeah, except for all those US citizens, and Texas citizens if you want to go that way, who took issue with the execution.

But what do I know, I just read things.

sebster wrote:

The US also has precedent, and if you go back far enough they've got English there as well. There's really nothing in our system stopping the same happening here, except a culture in our political parties to support indepedant judiciaries.

Now there's a scary thought.

Well, it isn't that bad. It isn't as though every decision is decided based on party loyalty... most cases remain non-political afterall. It's just on divisive political issues the judges are, more and more, lining up along party lines.

It seems like the case here. I would imagine not being bound by pending-legislation is a pretty basic piece of law. How could the 'liberal' judges dispute something like that?