Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
good call--they didn't stop the 2 whites being executedCourt overturns Boston Marathon bomber's death sentence
A federal appeals court Friday threw out Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s death sentence in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, saying the judge who oversaw the case did not adequately screen jurors for potential biases.apnews.com
Muslim privilege, folks!
....they went to a SCHOOL and killed CHILDREN!!!! .....they did the Moscow terror attack!!!!Court overturns Boston Marathon bomber's death sentence
A federal appeals court Friday threw out Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s death sentence in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, saying the judge who oversaw the case did not adequately screen jurors for potential biases.apnews.com
Muslim privilege, folks!
Its been 7 years already since he committed his crime, that's too fucking long.
The character is laughing like hell.
No wonder why there are lynch mobs, people get sick and tired of waiting for justice to occur.
BTW, why didn't Obama do anything about this guy? The Tsarnaev brothers are from the Russian Federation, Uncle Pooty called Hussein about them. Gave the President the heads up on them, advised Obama that they were Bad News and he should keep an eye on them. Why didn't he listen?
I see what you did there...and I LIKE it!I am always disappointed when I read how outraged people are about the Constitution. I mean they must hate the Constitution. They must just detest it.
I say that because the Constitution was and should be a restraint on Government. It means the Government must dot the I and cross the T during criminal trials. Yet whenever that is shown not to happen people get mad because it isn’t justice in their minds. It is. But it is not what you think is just.
Now let me explain this in a way you can understand. Let’s say a cop is charged with murdering a man. The Jury is selected. Eleven of the twelve Jurors are members of the Black Panthers. You would object that the cop can’t get a fair trial. You would be furious that the cop is being lynched by the justice system. Yet when the Review finds a similar situation in the sentencing of the blithering idiot who bombed Boston you howl that it isn’t fair.
When asked, the Jurors said they thought he was guilty. Before the trial. The Judge was supposed to excuse them. He did not. The White Cop with the Black Panther jury wouldn’t get a fair trial either.
An impartial jury is a part of that process. For everyone. Including the cop who is charged with a crime. Not just for those who you like.
Well saidYou have nade my point from earlier... the system in this country is far too interested in Legal procedure, bureaucracy and red tape rather than JUSTICE. That’s why I refuse to call it a Justice System.
and the lowest part of the legal system is not ambulance chasing lawyers, and certainly not the cops.
which leaves activist lib judges who care more about criminals than the victims of crime
I see what you did there...and I LIKE it!I am always disappointed when I read how outraged people are about the Constitution. I mean they must hate the Constitution. They must just detest it.
I say that because the Constitution was and should be a restraint on Government. It means the Government must dot the I and cross the T during criminal trials. Yet whenever that is shown not to happen people get mad because it isn’t justice in their minds. It is. But it is not what you think is just.
Now let me explain this in a way you can understand. Let’s say a cop is charged with murdering a man. The Jury is selected. Eleven of the twelve Jurors are members of the Black Panthers. You would object that the cop can’t get a fair trial. You would be furious that the cop is being lynched by the justice system. Yet when the Review finds a similar situation in the sentencing of the blithering idiot who bombed Boston you howl that it isn’t fair.
When asked, the Jurors said they thought he was guilty. Before the trial. The Judge was supposed to excuse them. He did not. The White Cop with the Black Panther jury wouldn’t get a fair trial either.
An impartial jury is a part of that process. For everyone. Including the cop who is charged with a crime. Not just for those who you like.
You are living in lib la la landWell saidYou have nade my point from earlier... the system in this country is far too interested in Legal procedure, bureaucracy and red tape rather than JUSTICE. That’s why I refuse to call it a Justice System.
and the lowest part of the legal system is not ambulance chasing lawyers, and certainly not the cops.
which leaves activist lib judges who care more about criminals than the victims of crime
Ok, since you have no clue how the system is supposed to work, let me explain it for you.
The Judge is sort of like a Referee. His job is to make sure both sides are following the rules. The rules are not made up as they go, they were written down long before. The Judge like the Referee, calls it like they see it.
The Prosecutor is pushing for the victims. His job is to present the case, and show the Jury that the accused did commit the crime. And if he gets a Guilty Verdict, explain to the Jury why the punishment should be severe. As severe as the law, the rules, allow.
The Defense Council is representing the accused. His job is to try and get the accused a Not Guilty Verdict. This by the way, is exactly what the Founders had in mind when they set the system up.
The Judge penalizes whichever side is breaking the rules. If the Prosecution for example, violated the Brady Rule, the one that was broken with General Flynn, then the Judge is supposed to suppress the evidence touched by that. In other words, if your informant was really an illegal wiretap, and that was the basis of your Search Warrant, anything found during the Search would be inadmissible.
The search warrant is supposed to be based upon true statements. Which is why the FBI Lawyer is facing serious penalties, because the FBI Lawyer helped the FBI produce false and misleading evidence in support of a warrant.
The Judge is nothing more than a Referee. The Prosecution of the accused is supposed to be hard. It is designed to be hard to convict. The Founders had no intention of the courts becoming a rubber stamp for the Government. Part of the reason they broke away from England is that the English could arrest any colonial they wanted, and convict them of the crime, and sentence and even execute them with little or no evidence, and forget a trial by your peers. It is why these rules, the foundation of the courts, is written down in the Bill of Rights.
Beyond that, the Jury could find the individual not Guilty regardless if he actually did it. They have the right to decide the law is unjust, or applied unjustly.
So those Left Leaning Judges you detest, IMO, are not doing it well enough. They are not enforcing the rules strictly enough. They are not telling the Prosecutors that violations of the Brady Rule will be handled by finding everyone involved in Contempt of Court and holding them in jail for a month or more to think about it. Even when a cop steals documents out of a Lawyer's briefcase in full view of witnesses and on camera, the cop is only required to apologize. A violation of every single principle of Attorney Client Privilege. Illegal Search, no problem. Just apologize. Violating Attorney Client Privilege? No sweat. An apology will do nicely. That cop should have been tossed in the jail until the Judge got around to thinking about his case. Nope. Just an apology thanks.
If we accept that the Bill of Rights was intended to restrain Government, than I submit that the Judges are not doing enough, instead as you argue, doing too much.
You are living in lib la la landWell saidYou have nade my point from earlier... the system in this country is far too interested in Legal procedure, bureaucracy and red tape rather than JUSTICE. That’s why I refuse to call it a Justice System.
and the lowest part of the legal system is not ambulance chasing lawyers, and certainly not the cops.
which leaves activist lib judges who care more about criminals than the victims of crime
Ok, since you have no clue how the system is supposed to work, let me explain it for you.
The Judge is sort of like a Referee. His job is to make sure both sides are following the rules. The rules are not made up as they go, they were written down long before. The Judge like the Referee, calls it like they see it.
The Prosecutor is pushing for the victims. His job is to present the case, and show the Jury that the accused did commit the crime. And if he gets a Guilty Verdict, explain to the Jury why the punishment should be severe. As severe as the law, the rules, allow.
The Defense Council is representing the accused. His job is to try and get the accused a Not Guilty Verdict. This by the way, is exactly what the Founders had in mind when they set the system up.
The Judge penalizes whichever side is breaking the rules. If the Prosecution for example, violated the Brady Rule, the one that was broken with General Flynn, then the Judge is supposed to suppress the evidence touched by that. In other words, if your informant was really an illegal wiretap, and that was the basis of your Search Warrant, anything found during the Search would be inadmissible.
The search warrant is supposed to be based upon true statements. Which is why the FBI Lawyer is facing serious penalties, because the FBI Lawyer helped the FBI produce false and misleading evidence in support of a warrant.
The Judge is nothing more than a Referee. The Prosecution of the accused is supposed to be hard. It is designed to be hard to convict. The Founders had no intention of the courts becoming a rubber stamp for the Government. Part of the reason they broke away from England is that the English could arrest any colonial they wanted, and convict them of the crime, and sentence and even execute them with little or no evidence, and forget a trial by your peers. It is why these rules, the foundation of the courts, is written down in the Bill of Rights.
Beyond that, the Jury could find the individual not Guilty regardless if he actually did it. They have the right to decide the law is unjust, or applied unjustly.
So those Left Leaning Judges you detest, IMO, are not doing it well enough. They are not enforcing the rules strictly enough. They are not telling the Prosecutors that violations of the Brady Rule will be handled by finding everyone involved in Contempt of Court and holding them in jail for a month or more to think about it. Even when a cop steals documents out of a Lawyer's briefcase in full view of witnesses and on camera, the cop is only required to apologize. A violation of every single principle of Attorney Client Privilege. Illegal Search, no problem. Just apologize. Violating Attorney Client Privilege? No sweat. An apology will do nicely. That cop should have been tossed in the jail until the Judge got around to thinking about his case. Nope. Just an apology thanks.
If we accept that the Bill of Rights was intended to restrain Government, than I submit that the Judges are not doing enough, instead as you argue, doing too much.
activist lib judges decide the outcome of cases in advance
they are the last hope for liberal activists who cant get things done through the legislative process
The activist lib judges make up law that liberal legislators cannot passThe liberal Judges you denounce defer to the Agents and Agencies as to what the law says and means a hell of a lot of the time.
The activist lib judges make up law that liberal legislators cannot passThe liberal Judges you denounce defer to the Agents and Agencies as to what the law says and means a hell of a lot of the time.
abortion rights is a good example of that
another is homosexuality and gay marriage
Sure.I am not going to argue the right with you. I am not going to point out that Polling consistently supports Abortion in limited situations.
Sure.I am not going to argue the right with you. I am not going to point out that Polling consistently supports Abortion in limited situations.
to save the life of the mother only
not to protect her ability to party with no strings attached
There's a difference between killing and murdering.A country that kills can't expect it's citizens to be any better.