After the justices agreed to review it, the Biden administration pursued the case, United States v. Tsarnaev, No. 20-443, even though President Biden has said he will work to abolish federal executions and the Justice Department under his administration has imposed a moratorium on carrying out the federal death penalty.
Until July 2020, there had been no federal executions in 17 years. In the six months that followed, the Trump administration executed 13 inmates, more than three times as many as the federal government had put to death in the previous six decades....
Why fight for the death penalty and maintain a moratorium against it? It's valuable to preserve power, even the power that you don't currently want to use. A slightly different way to put that is: For Democrats, the best political position is to oppose Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in court — and indeed to retain the death penalty — but never to execute anyone.
Posts
48 comments:
They want to preserve the death penalty for those truly heinous criminals who deserve it. For example, a middle-aged man who paraded through the capitol on January 6 while holding a sign.
So, lets see. Brilliant SCOTUS judges looking at same facts and using their brilliant legal minds come up with 6 Republicans for, and 3 Democrats against. That's why we need Brilliant legal scholars with high LSAT's on the Court.
Mr Wibble said...
They want to preserve the death penalty for those truly heinous criminals who deserve it. For example, a middle-aged man who paraded through the capitol on January 6 while holding a sign.
Agreed, but I think the Trump family would take precedence.
Finally, some good death news this week!
I missed the part in the constitution where it said the Federal Government or the Supreme Court had the power to tell the states whether they could have a death penalty or not.
It must take an LSAT score you can't ask about because Ann wants to call people racists to find that one.
He'll never be executed anyway-
The minority political appointees on the High Court will prevail in the end. Liberal ideology marches forward unabated. Minor speed bumps are not worthy of celebration.
The reasons given by the lower appellate court in setting aside the death sentence (which dealt with jury voir dire) might have had something to do with DOJ's decision to continue.
Why fight for the death penalty and maintain a moratorium against it? It's valuable to preserve power, even the power that you don't currently want to use.
Until of course one of the J6 defendants is sentenced to death.
Reading the dissent, it seems that three Supreme Court Justices find sufficient reason to overturn a 30-count death sentence conviction because, while the murderer did indeed commit multiple murders, and even admits he committed the murders, he should be excused because his dead accomplice was - or rather might have been, without further evidence other than mere self-serving claims - an even worse monster than the person convicted of all the murders.
Patty Hearst, we need your insight to this kind of thinking, and we need it now!
It's Nice, to see some good news!
Even Dzho will be Happy.. He's going straight to Hell, to be tortured by 72 whores
About as convoluted as, though much less clever than, how Gilbert & Sullivan came up with a way to curb executions.
For Democrats, the best political position ... indeed to retain the death penalty —
but never to execute anyone.
Dems GOTTA keep the death penalty, Not for Criminals... For Republicans
The D justices ALWAYS find a reason to overturn a death penalty. The only time they don't is when its some Rightwing extremist. Then all their liberal/left morality gets put aside. None of this "tethered" to the Constitution. It just their using Judicial Power to enforce their personal prejudices.
The guy ran over his own brother in his escape to a boat parked in a nearby neighborhood…..aside from of course the many innocent people killed and maimed in the attack and subsequent run through the area. Scum of the earth, that guy.
Boston Strong
Playing with what is ostensibly a doubled-edged scalpel of aborting a life for material causes (e.g. premeditated murder) vs holding human rites for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes. Roe, Roe, Roe your murderer, parent, baby, yourself down the river Styx.
Nobody likes the death penalty. Some considered it justice, some considered it a cure for recidivism, some found support in scripture. But nobody liked it.
I always thought it was one necessary cog in the the wheel of justice.
But in the last 10 years it is clear the Justice system is broken and cannot be trusted to carry out such a penalty.
But to my position against the death penalty, there exists exceptions. Pre meditated evil is one of those. The Boston Bombers fit into that category
As usual, the Biggest Brain spoke for the smaller Brains beside him, "This evidence may have led some jurors to conclude that Tamerlan’s influence was so pervasive that Dzhokhar did not deserve to die for any of the actions he took in connection with the bombings, even those taken outside of Tamerlan’s presence. And it would have taken only one juror’s change of mind to have produced a sentence other than death, even if a severe one," the Biggest Brain said, rubbing his nose.
The goal, plainly, was to find a way to render the death penalty impossible to apply. This was the only goal that mattered. He paused, then continued in his slow, deliberate manner. "I have written elsewhere about the problems inherent in a system that allows for the imposition of the death penalty. See, e.g., id., at 909–938. This case provides just one more example of some of those problems," he remarked slyly as the other Brains joined in the dissent.
A lot of liberal judges oppose the death penalty, and so they simply declare that the death penalty violates the US Constitution.
The same thing happened with abortion.
On the cover of the Rolling Stone…
The argument by the dissent and the ruling by the court of appeals is weak.
This should have been 9-0.
Convicted on 30 counts. Death eligible on 17 counts. The jury voted for death on 6 of them.
The jury questionnaire was fine and excluding evidence that his terrorist brother may have killed three other people after robbing and tying them up was fine.
He should have killed his brother before they killed 4 people together.
The best government would be one with a small set of simple laws that are ruthlessly, objectively, and uniformly enforced.
The worst government is one with a giant heap of vague laws that are enforced randomly based on the whim of government agents.
Which one are we?
He never should have been taken alive in the first place!
Since at the moment there’s no Democrat politician the leftie ladies would like to blow Tsaranev is the tousled hair terrorist they’d like to blow…alive, preferably…
Justice is finally done. And that’s the way it should be. Evil incarnate.
They want to preserve the death penalty for those truly heinous criminals who deserve it.
Reduce/Remove/Recycle planned parent/hood (i.e. granny, baby) and other "burdens" for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes.
One of the worst days of my life, and the media tried to turn the bomber into a rock star. The police should have put a few more holes in that boat as a public service. Quick! Execute him before they change their minds.
Gilbar said:
Dems GOTTA keep the death penalty, Not for Criminals... For Republicans
************
Exactly. Just yesterday, our resident Village Idiot Howard advocated "terminating with extreme prejudice" people he disagrees with politically. Right here on this blog.
That's a phrase lifted from "Apocalypse Now".
It means "kill".
Althouse didn't flag it, so I take it she ratifies the sentiment.
Well, they may want to preserve the power so that they can execute some January 6th insurrectionists, like Ms. Babbitt.
But seriously, does Anyone think a democrat admin is going to execute Anyone?
“ But seriously, does Anyone think a democrat admin is going to execute Anyone?”
You you mean besides the Clintons? What was that story—when Bill was governor they took a break while campaigning for president just to fly back to Arkansas just to execute someone with brain damage?
But he's sooooo cute...leave him alone!!
I missed the part in the constitution where it said the Federal Government or the Supreme Court had the power to tell the states whether they could have a death penalty or not.
It must take an LSAT score you can't ask about because Ann wants to call people racists to find that one.
He was convicted of a federal crime that carried the possibility of the death penalty. Massachusetts does not have the death penalty, and the Feds could not tell Massachusetts to put someone to death, but they can do it themselves.
The guy ran over his own brother in his escape to a boat parked in a nearby neighborhood….
Hence the nickname (courtesy of Howie Carr) for the brother - "Speedbump."
By the way, the coroner ruled that the death of the brother was caused by him being run over, not by him being shot.
Not crazy about the death penalty. But until abortion is considered a killing I’m sticking with it.
Worked in the Federal prison system, law enforcement, and the justice system for over 4 decades. As a liberal youngster I opposed the death penalty on religious grounds. As I worked in the system, became more conservative, and saw how flawed it is, I oppose the death penalty on practical grounds. My opposition on religious grounds has never waivered, it has been supplemented by factual knowledge of the process.
as just to execute someone with brain damage?
But Meade, in the Immortal Words, of SE Hinton: That Was THEN, This Is NOW
and Nowadays, democrats don't execute people
The extent of judicial, social, and religious (e.g. "ethical") scrutiny of viability has evolved as "burden" with plausible cause. To be sure, a progressive path and grade.
Americans are kind of funny about people who deliberately kill kids. It’s how we roll.
@Meade, you talking about the guy who set aside a portion of the dessert from his final meal “for later.”
I'm not sure how I would have ruled on this one. Seems right on the borderline, giving the rules regarding mitigation and judge's discretion.
I'm uncomfortable with the idea that human beings have the right to terminiate a life created by God (as ALL lives are). But our Constitution apparently says we can do so, if the person to be killed has had all due process of law, so I guess it's OK. But, otherwise, No.
But until abortion is considered a killing I’m sticking with it.
Elective abortion is killing, ritual sacrifice for social, clinical, redistributive, and fair weather causes. Elective abortion is restricted in the third trimester, and at variable points in the second trimester. The technical term of art "murder" is only distinguished by location. Event elective abortion in self-defense is processed through reconciliation. Planned parent/hood denies a woman and man's dignity and agency, and reduces human life to a negotiable commodity. A starting point is to recognize a human life is viable from the first heart beat and nervous system function to the last.
For a consistent, reconcilable solution, either both or neither death penalty can be supported. The reason to oppose the death penalty in the case of reproductive rites is straightforward. The reason to oppose the death penalty in the case of murderers is the state of judicial discretion and proving guilt, threat beyond plausible?... probable cause.
So lock him up (and at least protect him from the likes of Whitey Bulger's killers) until he dies, ignored and reviled, in old age after a life whose only distinction was killing people he never had met.
Death penalty candidates get way more attention than they deserve.
For Democrats, the best political position is to oppose Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in court — and indeed to retain the death penalty — but never to execute anyone.
======
if some D would murmur to his lawyer >>> Bomber could transition and ponder the surgery ; also move to facility with !!! ### virgins / raisins ??
But he is soooo cute!!! Leftie women LOVEEE him. He got his picture on the Rolling Stone!!!
Big Mike—that’s the one—Ricky Ray Rector.
democrats hate killing mass murdering thugs... but they love liking full term babies.
The death penalty is clearly tolerated by the Judeo-Christian bible and the Constitution. I know that there is always the possibility of it being applied to an innocent person, but we have multiple examples of people killed by convicted murderers who should have been but did not get executed (many but not all in prison with the murderer). Their blood is on our society's hands as much as the blood of the executed purportedly innocent person.
I would trade the death penalty for a gentlepersons' agreement that convicted capital murderers get life in solitary without parole and that there will be no abortions past the 1st trimester.
Politics is the art of the possible. Can't we all get along?
Post a Comment