New Supreme Court Term

[Scary_Tiger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whether explicit images created without using actual children can be prosecuted as child pornography.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. Most open and shut one imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea which way you think it'll go.

[/ QUOTE ]

He thinks it will go towards allowing artificially created child pornography. I agree with him that this would be one of the more insane decisions if it went the other way, but I don't seem to have as much faith as Tiger does that the supreme court isn't insane.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Felix_Nietzsche]

***I think there will be alot of coin flip cases with this supreme court with that liar Anthony Kennedyn casting the deciding vote. I call him a liar because govt attorneys which brought Kennedy to Reagan's attention said he LIED pretending to be more conservative than he really was.... Reagan got fooled by Kennedy...

[ QUOTE ]
The most watched case is another Guantanamo detainee case. This time, its a challenge to a law Congress passed last year denying Guantanamo detainees Habeas Corpus protections and the right to challege their detention in federal court. I would prefer we handle the detainees as Geneva Convention POWs, but failing that, the only other option should be as criminal defendants.

[/ QUOTE ]
Captured soldiers have specific rights under the Geneva convention. Soldiers which fail to abide by the Geneva Convention (eg not wearing uniforms) are classified as unlawful enemy combatents. The latter have very few rights. BTW in WW2, captured Axis soldiers did not the right to challenge their detention in Federal court. In the battle for Tunesia 250,000 Axis soldiers were captured in that battle alone..... The OP would argue this one battle would result in 200,000 federal cases challenging the USA's right to keep them prisoner.

[ QUOTE ]
A drug related case involves whether federal judges can ignore statutory sentencing guidelines in drug cases. These laws are often criticized as draconian and I suspect many judges would like to hand out lighter sentences.

[/ QUOTE ]
The only constitutional angle is the statute barring cruel and unusual punishment. If the average murderer get 7 years and the avererage drug dealer gets 15 years.....then the system is out-of-whack.

[ QUOTE ]
The court will consider whether a person can be arrested and searched for an offence like speeding that normally resuts in a ticket.

[/ QUOTE ]
The right to be protected from searches has been used and abused. If you carry pot in your car, keep in your trunk. But if you refuse access to your car trunk, then you will be unlawfully detain while they bring a drug sniffing dog to violate your rights.

[ QUOTE ]
Whether the normal lethal injection method of execution constitutes an 8th Amendment violation. I'd like to put money on the Court rejecting this argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lethal injection was invented as a more humane way to kill people. We can go back to hanging if you like. It was constitutional in the times of George Washington so hanging should be good to go now. I think it is STUPID that this case got this far....

[ QUOTE ]
An Indiana law requiring voters to present a government ID at the polling place. I don't have a strong opinion on this one. On one hand, preventing voter fraud is important; on the other hand, I can definately see how this would disproportionally hurt the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]
Voter fraud is the democrat's secret weapon. This is how Kennedy beat Nixon thanks to LBJ's crookedness and Mayor Daly in Cook County. There is a reason why the Repubs support voter IDs and the Dems oppose this....even when the Repubs offer to use public money to pay for photo IDs. The Dems argue this is a type of poll tax. So you need an ID to get on a plane, cash a check, do bank transactions, etc.....but it is too much of a hardship to bring an ID to vote. The fact the Repubs offer to finance these IDs exposes the dishonest 'poll tax' argument the Dems try to bring up. Hell even 'poor' Mexico can afford top-of-the-line voter ID cards.....but the US is too poor. Yes?

[ QUOTE ]
A Louisiana man is on death row for raping a 12 year old. He is the only person in the country on death row for a crime not involving a murder. The Court will examine whether the death penalty for non-murder crimes is an 8th Amendment violation

[/ QUOTE ]
Kill the bastard.....

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the relevant precident and constitutional basis in those cases.

[/ QUOTE ]
Kind of hard to say what the precedent is because none of these cases have settled law. That's why the Supreme Court takes the cases in the first place. Below is what I can recall:

- SCOTUS has previously ruled that the Gitmo detainees have the right to habeas corpus. The Congressional law tries to get around that somehow. I vaguely recall that the SC left the door open earlier for Congress to pass a law on this subject.

- The drug cases are not based on the Constitution, but on interpretations of statute. I'm pretty sure most of the existing precedent says that judges may not deviate from the guidelines.

- People may be arrested for crimes that normally result in a fine.

- The current 3 drug cocktail for lethal injections is constitutional. You can imagine how often this argument is made. I imagine the SC took this case to slap down some rogue appellate court

- A wild guess that the death penalty for rape violates the 8th Amendment.

- Congress and state legislatures have virtually unfettered ability to regulate guns regardless of the 2nd Amendment.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whether the normal lethal injection method of execution constitutes an 8th Amendment violation. I'd like to put money on the Court rejecting this argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lethal injection was invented as a more humane way to kill people. We can go back to hanging if you like. It was constitutional in the times of George Washington so hanging should be good to go now. I think it is STUPID that this case got this far....


[/ QUOTE ]

You'll being executed. How could any method be cruel and unusual? And why do they have suicide watch on death row?

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
You'll being executed. How could any method be cruel and unusual? And why do they have suicide watch on death row?

[/ QUOTE ]
In case you're being serious, the precedent is basically that the government can never inflict physical pain on a prisoner. For instance, we couldn't execute someone by immolation. Yes, I know this is illogical.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You'll being executed. How could any method be cruel and unusual? And why do they have suicide watch on death row?

[/ QUOTE ]
In case you're being serious, the precedent is basically that the government can never inflict physical pain on a prisoner. For instance, we couldn't execute someone by immolation. Yes, I know this is illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, stoning may be barbaric. Don't have a problem with most methods used in the last fifty years.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
You'll being executed. How could any method be cruel and unusual?

[/ QUOTE ]
Cruel and unusual refers to inflicting pain.
Executions have ALWAYS been constitutional in this country.... ALWAYS.... You can thank George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et al who know more about the constituion than the liberal nitwits who now sit on the supreme court...

Hanging was the standard method of execution at the birth of the USA. A quick drop and a snap of the neck......game over. Very fast and very quick. I don't see lethal injection as much of an improvement with regard to giving a person a quick death....

[bobman0330]

I'm pretty sure the contention is that lethal injection is frequently botched in a way that makes it very painful to the condemned.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure the contention is that lethal injection is frequently botched in a way that makes it very painful to the condemned.

[/ QUOTE ]

how can LI be botched more often than hanging? Give them surgical anaesthesia before the lethal dose, boom, done

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure the contention is that lethal injection is frequently botched in a way that makes it very painful to the condemned.

[/ QUOTE ]
The main reason why the SCOTUS will rule that lethal injection is constitutional is because to do otherwise would basically abolish the death penalty. If you found that lethal injection was cruel and unusual, you would have to devise a method of execution that inflicts less suffering on the condemned. I sure can't think of a more pleasant way to go.