I hope that's an elected judgeship. She should be out of a job.

Actual Farking: nopokerface: I hope that's an elected judgeship. She should be out of a job.

sometimes you have to follow your heart

My decision is not an act of unabashed judicial activism ... I remember when women and blacks could not vote. I remember when so-called witches were burned. I remember when gays had to hide to be in the military. My decision is not to buck the system or stir the waters.

That was the basis for her decision? Weak. And I'm pretty sure Texas elects everything, so I don't imagine she will have another term. Good riddance.


How the fark old is she that she remembers witch-burnings? 300?

I love the results when you click the link on the defendent's name

Kuroutesshin: Actual Farking: nopokerface: I hope that's an elected judgeship. She should be out of a job.

sometimes you have to follow your heart

My decision is not an act of unabashed judicial activism ... I remember when women and blacks could not vote. I remember when so-called witches were burned. I remember when gays had to hide to be in the military. My decision is not to buck the system or stir the waters.

That was the basis for her decision? Weak. And I'm pretty sure Texas elects everything, so I don't imagine she will have another term. Good riddance.


How the fark old is she that she remembers witch-burnings? 300?

Maybe she is thinking of the Dixie Chicks.

here comes the judge...

FTA:

According to the court transcript reviewed by the newspaper, Hawthorne acknowledged that all of the state's appeals courts have "consistently rejected" the reasons she offered for her ruling, but she insisted that changes could still be made in the law.

---

That is what has been causing the most buzz around here. You don't often see a piece of "appeal me bait" like this.

If she'd just kept her mouth shut about her ruling and just ruled she'd be fine. This is Texas, and they like killin' them a convict. You *literally* played the role of activist judge in a rather impotent attempt to change that, and surprise surprise, you were recused. There are reasons that Texas has such a high rate of execution, and if someone were truly interested in reducing that rate, they would work to fix those issues (new window).

This judge's mistake is being way too farking stupid to be a judge. And looking like a fat china doll.


/hot in an ironic sort of way
//Why yes, I'm bitter at the tail end of my Hump Day work schedule, thanks for asking.
///Harrrrrumph

Spoon over Marin: Kuroutesshin: Actual Farking: nopokerface: I hope that's an elected judgeship. She should be out of a job.

sometimes you have to follow your heart

My decision is not an act of unabashed judicial activism ... I remember when women and blacks could not vote. I remember when so-called witches were burned. I remember when gays had to hide to be in the military. My decision is not to buck the system or stir the waters.

That was the basis for her decision? Weak. And I'm pretty sure Texas elects everything, so I don't imagine she will have another term. Good riddance.


How the fark old is she that she remembers witch-burnings? 300?

It's Texas, It could have been 6 months ago.

Don't be stupid, it's been years since we've done anything like that. Two.

YeeeeeeeeeeeHAWWWWWWWWWW!!!! RIDE THE LIGHTNIN' !

Good for her. The death penalty is murder.

/just like abortion
//Pro Life in almost every sense of the word

History is not on the side of capital punishment. Wait long enough and it will be gone.

... then getting into a shootout with police.

HERE is the problem. The police need more practice on the range to avoid these unnecessary court costs.

I May Be Crazy But...: Don't be stupid, it's been years since we've done anything like that. Two.

Yeah, but they still have the quarterly burnings when us former Texans come to visit. It makes for a nice holiday and it's not really all that bad for a secret club. You just need to be permanently tattooed so the other members recognize you as their own and not mistake you for a witch in the warehouse.

thebigfarker: ... then getting into a shootout with police.

HERE is the problem. The police need more practice on the range to avoid these unnecessary court costs.

This is a cromulent point. Perfectly so.

She remembers when witches were burned? Shiat! Either she's 300 years old or someone needs to check her meds... maybe that's the real reason for her removal... she's Farked in the head!

Direct quote from the judge:
My decision is not an act of unabashed judicial activism

From later in the article:
According to the court transcript reviewed by the newspaper, Hawthorne acknowledged that all of the state's appeals courts have "consistently rejected" the reasons she offered for her ruling

So, to review, she understands that there are multiple precedents, recently set no less, where appellate courts have consistently ruled a certain way. She rules in direct opposition to accepted law and precedent, and then claims it was not judicial activism.

Someone needs to explain to either her or me what judicial activism is, because one of us has it wrong.

Nem Wan: History is not on the side of capital punishment. Wait long enough and it will be gone.

I still say that if jail/prison becomes what it should be that we could reduce almost all sentences by about 90%. If you went to prison and were cut off from the outside world, cut off from other inmates, had to perform hard or meaningful labor, and in general were only left with the thoughts of you actions to pass the time, you'd be less likely to repeat an offense. To be clear, I'm not talking about torture or shoving people in a dark cell for days on end.

Also, make a prisoner's work output equal to the cost of their incarceration. I'd advocate surplus, but that would give the government an incentive for throwing more people in jail (as they have now).

If people are found guilty of a capital offense, up their work load and give all proceeds to surviving families of the victims where warranted. Although, many of these prisoners would be unable to perform meaningful duties. In that case, give them the most meager means of existence possible. Also, never let them out.

OR, at the very least, make the families of the victims be the ones who pull the lever. It might be a lot more difficult to put someone to death if you have to take the responsibility yourself.

FarkLiter:
Someone needs to explain to either her or me what judicial activism is, because one of us has it wrong.

I'll give you a hint. You are not wrong.

/I really need to learn what 'hint' means.

Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Ex 20:13 Thou shalt not kill

Lev 24:17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.

Ex 21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death

The US was founded by Christians and our laws are based on the Bible and the Bible is pretty clear that it is wrong to kill. I think the judge is right about executions being illegal in the eyes of God and therefore it is illegal in Texas.

I remember when so-called witches were burned.

FarkLiter: So, to review, she understands that there are multiple precedents, recently set no less, where appellate courts have consistently ruled a certain way. She rules in direct opposition to accepted law and precedent, and then claims it was not judicial activism.

That doesn't stop people who want to put the 10 Commandments in public buildings.

imprimere: I still say that if jail/prison becomes what it should be that we could reduce almost all sentences by about 90%. If you went to prison and were cut off from the outside world, cut off from other inmates, had to perform hard or meaningful labor, and in general were only left with the thoughts of you actions to pass the time, you'd be less likely to repeat an offense. To be clear, I'm not talking about torture or shoving people in a dark cell for days on end.

But that's exactly what you're saying. You're saying people should be put in solitary confinement 24/7 without any justification except to make you feel good.

Do you know the result of what you recommend? Institutionalized people who cannot function outside of prison. They go and commit crimes and go right back in. It's stupid. It's expensive. And we already do a lot of it but you recommend more of it.

Stupid should hurt.

Also, make a prisoner's work output equal to the cost of their incarceration. I'd advocate surplus, but that would give the government an incentive for throwing more people in jail (as they have now).

So you're encouraging even more a financial incentive to put people in prison regardless of their crime. Didn't we already see a horrific example this year with teens and younger being sent to incarceration because of kickbacks given by the ones running the system to the judges, because they were making money for every kid in jail?

Your "simple solution" is stupid and wrong, much like all simple solutions to complex problems.

Crikes.

cman: Good. Activist judges are a stain on our justice system.

Except when they help Tejans gain the presidency and make corporations people, amirite?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how 'conservative' people who say they believe in small government and profess a love of liberty can support the death penalty.

How many times does the state have to be wrong and MURDER someone before we figure out the state really shouldn't have that power?

Muta: Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Ex 20:13 Thou shalt not kill

Lev 24:17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.

Ex 21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death

The US was founded by Christians and our laws are based on the Bible and the Bible is pretty clear that it is wrong to kill. I think the judge is right about executions being illegal in the eyes of God and therefore it is illegal in Texas.

At least 3 of those are pro-death penalty, the other is not anti.

mdeesnuts: I'm still trying to wrap my head around how 'conservative' people who say they believe in small government and profess a love of liberty can support the death penalty.

How many times does the state have to be wrong and MURDER someone before we figure out the state really shouldn't have that power?

As long as they're not white, it's okay. Obviously if you're black, brown, or whatever, you're not a true christian anyway.

Because all true christians are white. The bible says that all the white people shall have dominion over everyone else. Yup, that's what it says. Rah-rah christian warriors!

And blacks aren't really human anyway, that's why they only counted for 3/5'ths of real people when the Constitution was signed. We got so far away from what the Founders (peace be upon them) said, that by had the South not lost the war, we would have had a much more Constitutionally-correct society.

/need a bath now
//guys, seriously, guys, I can't reset the 0 on my sarcasm meter...halp.

cman: Not to burst your bubble, but it could also be translated as "Thou shalt not murder". Since the original language of the Ten Commandments are ancient Hebrew and not English translations are open to interpretation.

Sorry to burst your bubble...

1) This is America where we speak American and our Bible is the real American Bible by King James.

2) Even if we accept your Jew Talk Bible as true, your interpretation only covers Ex 20:13 Thou shalt not kill. The real Bible still says:

Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Lev 24:17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.

Ex 21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death

The Chick Judge was just doing Gods work.

So why is this asinine? Judges are supposed to be "unbiased" - even though that's impossible, most judges are intelligent enough to keep their mouths shut. They removed a judge from a death penalty case, a judge who has voiced strong opinions about the death penalty. Can we move along now?

Dammit!

bubo_sibiricus: imprimere: I still say that if jail/prison becomes what it should be that we could reduce almost all sentences by about 90%. If you went to prison and were cut off from the outside world, cut off from other inmates, had to perform hard or meaningful labor, and in general were only left with the thoughts of you actions to pass the time, you'd be less likely to repeat an offense. To be clear, I'm not talking about torture or shoving people in a dark cell for days on end.

But that's exactly what you're saying. You're saying people should be put in solitary confinement 24/7 without any justification except to make you feel good.

Do you know the result of what you recommend? Institutionalized people who cannot function outside of prison. They go and commit crimes and go right back in. It's stupid. It's expensive. And we already do a lot of it but you recommend more of it.

Stupid should hurt.

Also, make a prisoner's work output equal to the cost of their incarceration. I'd advocate surplus, but that would give the government an incentive for throwing more people in jail (as they have now).

So you're encouraging even more a financial incentive to put people in prison regardless of their crime. Didn't we already see a horrific example this year with teens and younger being sent to incarceration because of kickbacks given by the ones running the system to the judges, because they were making money for every kid in jail?

Your "simple solution" is stupid and wrong, much like all simple solutions to complex problems.

Crikes.

Wow. You are either trying to understand or I am not being a very effective communicator. The key here is that the prisoner will not have to spend nearly as long in jail if the punishment is more suitably deterrent.

I don't want monetary incentive for incarceration. That is why I said, basically, a prisoner should pay for their own stay AND NOT MORE. No kickbacks, no extra money for the state.

I don't want long term institutionalization, rather a more swift punishment. The idea is not to keep people long enough to completely erase their ability to function in society and certainly not to lock them in solitary. I just don't advocate long sentences where they have an alternate form of society. As it stands now, they are tossed in for long periods of time, but have tv, recreation, and largely unstructured interraction with other criminals.

/note that I've bolded where you completely made up statements as being authored by me

cman: Good. Activist judges are a stain on our justice system.

Unless they are conservative activists, right?

You can almost learn Sharia law from reading this thread, except for the bacon flavored popcorn.

Muta: Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Ex 20:13 Thou shalt not kill

Lev 24:17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.

Ex 21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death

The US was founded by Christians and our laws are based on the Bible and the Bible is pretty clear that it is wrong to kill. I think the judge is right about executions being illegal in the eyes of God and therefore it is illegal in Texas.

Funny how you conveniently use the OLD TESTAMENT when it suits you. You do realize the new testament pretty much completely invalidated the old one right? And the Old Testament was not "Christian" as he was not yet even born.

Don't preach scripture when you have little understanding of it.