Unfortunately all the "decency" I've seen has made me indecent.

A "lovely" mother and child your so desperately protecting with decency, will stand on other people and throw them into the fire, if it suits them, murder animals by the millions and pollute the world. These people don't give a sh!t about their neighbors. I have zero sympathy left for anyone. Get set on fire, eaten by sharks, stabbed, shot, run over, I don't mind much.

To who? The Ronald Reagan Library?

I guess people don't like your hate speech (isn't that the buzzword right now?).

Don't worry, if he's true to his word and he gets me banned he'll end up killing himself out of boredom within a few days which should do nicely to solving your problem.

I wonder, if it could possibly get through his thick head (doubtful) that there is an invention called a language filter, you put it on websites and forums when you don't want particular words said.

Gog forums have no filter, equals, are you listening really closely Tauto through that fogged up brain of yours?

That they don't mind swearing.

Omfg! REALLY?!?

What hate speech?

Your hate speech. You know, gloating over someone's death.

marriage or sexual orientation are non issues they have nothing to do with the goverment

The problem with quotes, or most news coverage at all these days, is they will always be taken out of context by whichever side of the debate is presenting them. The 'proper' quote (and I say that because I have no more reason to believe RWarehall's version is accurate than I do bude's) is not quite as bad, but I still find it objectionable.

Then you're probably a better person than I am.
I don't associate with either 'side'. I have problems with just as many left wing figures as right wing ones. I would actually claim moral inferiority as I'm not particularly proud of the fact I am glad (or would be glad) at certain people's deaths. But I'm human, that's what we do.

I think bad_fur_day actually sums up my feelings towards humanity pretty well in http://www.gog.com/forum/general/us_supreme_court_justice_scalia_apparently_found_dead/post76
]his post[/url]. Humanity as a whole is pretty shit, I find it difficult to believe in the concept of basic human goodness anymore.

I can't really comment there, I picked Obama mainly as I know he is a target of hate for many on the right. I no nothing about the liberal judges and what people's feeling towards them may be. Though I imagine if they succeeded in, say, banning the owning of guns in the USA then their deaths would probably be celebrated by a lot of right leaning people (if not actively sought out)

Nope, I'm saying that law is meant to be interpreted by people. It is a malleable thing meant to be changed. Following it to the letter is ridiculous if it is obvious that doing so is harmful. To fall back on the argument that 'The law doesn't really say we should/shouldn't do this' is stupid. The law says I shouldn't kill people, but if I had a chance to kill a man who was shooting at others then I would take, as I would expect others to.

Honestly, yes I would say that all Supreme court judges probably are evil (to a given definition of evil). Just as all politicians are. I don't really believe any individual (or small group) should have that kind of power. No one gets into politics to be neutral, everyone has an agenda. They do it for their own personal gain, or the gain of the 'side' they support. Selfless people are few and far between (if they exist at all). This man was no different. If you try to claim that the decisions he made were done with no personal agenda or bias whatsoever, then you are wrong.


Good, neither have I. The problem is those who are doing it tend not to admit the fact, because I think we all realise that coming in here, downvoting an opinion you don't agree with and then leaving is a pretty cowardly way to behave. At least have the decency to claim that you have done so (we're all happy enough to say +1 when we do it, why not say -1 too?) and explain why.

This is the way the American criminal justice system has always worked from it's inception...
You get one trial to defend your innocence. You win, you cannot be tried again for the crime(s). You lose, you lose. While you can appeal for procedural errors, that was your trial and any appeal is meant to correct any procedural issues.

What some are seemingly suggesting is that one should have a right to a new trial if new evidence comes forth later. While people talk now about new DNA techniques, it could be what...a new witness...anything. Can you possibly imagine what would happen if you got your wish? Every single convicted criminal, maybe getting a friend of a friend to play witness for a new trial. Lose that one, try again. It's well known how backed up the legal system can get now. Can you imagine what it would turn into? Because with every innocent prisoner who might have some new evidence, you'd also have to allow every "innocent" criminal a new trial as well. There is a reason one is not allowed unlimited re-trials to prove one's innocence.

Call Scalia evil for that decision, but what he is clearly saying is you cannot change the laws based on "feelz". There are established laws that have been in place for over 200 years and just because a mob of people think someone might be innocent, they somehow must be entitled to a new trial. It has never worked that way and for good reason.

Some states have made recent exception for DNA evidence. That is their right by passing a new law, but generally speaking, the legal recourse is to seek a pardon. And as a Supreme Court justice, Scalia had to rule by the law. Frankly, with that decision, I don't see how any other decision could be made.

Just shows how poorly educated so many people are with regards to real-life issues such as the law.

I'm going to go play "Craft the World". Notify me when people start ripping their clothes off. :D

Where did I do that? (I don't see any of that in the OP.)
Actually, marriage does have to do with the government; it grants certain legal rights and responsibilities. For example, tax law distinguishes between single people and married couples; married couples pay less tax if one makes significantly more than the other, and more if they make about the same. Also, hospital visitation rights and next-of-kin are affected by marriage.

I haven't really got much knowledge of the American justice system, or even particularly our own.

I think over here an appeal can be made in light of new evidence or something similar (to a certain point anyway, I think you have a limited number of appeals, to successively higher courts), so maybe it is just a different system / culture thing, though I could be wrong.

I don't see that as being a bad idea, though there should be some kind of limit on what new evidence is considered (for example let the judge decide if it's worth actually retrying someone based on new evidence, which would hopefully weed out any close friends popping up with substantiated evidence as you suggest), but I suppose that's another can of worms too...
I may be misunderstanding the system, but wouldn't it possible for someone to be found innocent of a crime and for new evidence to come to light which proves they are not?
Surely there should be some method to deal with such cases as well as those of innocent people going to prison for crimes they didn't commit?

I disagree, the length of time a law has been in place is no reason it shouldn't be changed or overturned if the reasons are good. Maybe in this instance that decision was the right one (thank you for explaining more about the situation), but the idea that the law is a fixed thing that shouldn't change at all is clearly flawed.

Of course not.