Only in California.

None of this would have happened had the federal judge not issued such an asinine ruling, one that was an obvious indication of his personal opinions and feelings and not based on Law.

Damn him and his humanity!

Hey you know the commandment:

"Thou Shalt Not Kill" *

*those who claim to be Christians are exempt if: its state sponsored executions, when asassinating socialist leaders, or when waging wars to evict dictators that we don't like

Yes! Thank God for California!

And your point is...?

You should know by now that my opposition to the death penalty has been stated several times on this board.

Regardless, this decision by the judge was just stupid, especially considering that it flies in the face of other such rulings dealing with the same lethal injection drug combination. And if this monster is claiming he's going to get a headache before he's executed, or that he might suffer a little pain, well, what about the electric chair? That's been used before and it was never deemed as too painful then.

I also find it completely hypocritical that doctors would walk out claiming they couldn't be a part of killing a human being, but they can, figuratively speaking, walk across the street and slaughter a few babies via abortion and get paid big bucks to do it.

This monster brutally murdered a woman, and here we have people like SFTom despicably defending him. Disgusting.

[ February 22, 2006, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

I don't think he was defending him, MIB, just saying maybe he shouldn't be killed. Didn't your Momma ever teach you two wrongs don't make a right? When we, as a society, kill people for killing, aren't we, by our action, condoning the act we're trying to prevent? Lock him up forever, no problem here, but we shouldn't be in the business of killing people. Just makes us as guilty as them.

a) they weren't doctors, they were anestesiologists.
babies can't be killed via abortion, they would have to be fetuses.

Typical distortion. Despicable, thy name is MIB.

a.) Tell an anesthesiologist he isn't a doctor, and he'll stick that needle in your ass.

b.) baby=fetus=baby. They're one in the same, the difference being the Latin term itself.

Ah, another bloviating defender of the California murderer. Despicable.

newsflash: anesthesiologists don't perform abortions.

newsflash 2: inside the womb its a fetus, outside the womb its a baby. its not about Latin (which we don't speak) or semantics, its common sense.

Again, a distortion. No one is defending the murderer. SFTom is (I'm guessing) against the death penalty. That doesn't mean he supports a murderer. I'm for the death penalty. I'm also for not distorting what people say.

You ought to be ashamed. But considering your history of lies on this board and your shameless sucking up to the right-wing bastards in the GodOP, I'm sure we'll never hear you admit your shame.

And the difference is...ah, semantics! There is NO difference between the two, other than the environment in which one is located.

So if it's outside the womb, as is the case in partial birth abortion (except, of course, for the baby's head, which the "doctor" stabs with a pair of scissors to allow him to suck the brains out), why do the anti-life people defend that barbaric procedure? Don't answer that. The answer's in the text above anyway.

I'm really ashamed. Really, really ashamed. I'm soooooo ashamed to be chastized by Mr. Sanctimony himself. Puhleeze.

When this nation has a president who has the courage and intelligence to abolish all deliberate murders of its own citizens by this country, we will finally have turned the corner on the trek toward civilization.

I could not imaging any supreme court ruling such an executive order unconstitutional, just as I can not imagine a justification for the killing of an incarcerated person who might be innocent simply to make other people feel better.

Huh??? :confused:

Since when does a president have the legal authority to unilaterally stop executions by any or all states?

What have YOU been smoking?

Yes, I'm opposed to the death penalty. I think it's morally wrong for the state to intentionally kill someone, although I can see how families of victims might feel some "closure" to know that the killer of a loved one is now also dead. And I believe the state has a duty to mete out punishment on behalf of its citizens. But these considerations don't outweigh my moral conviction that the death penalty is wrong. I also believe it is an unconstitutionally cruel-and-unusual punishment among modern, industrialized nations, and that it is carried out in a capricious manner. There's also the disturbingly not unusual instance where evidence turns up showing someone is innocent after he or she has been executed--nothing that can be done to right that wrong. THe state should not be in the business of killing people--period.

And, my comment above was also motivated by pride for the people of my home state for, once again, thinking and acting with independence and conviction, rather than succumbing to rationalizations and mob-mentality, which many people find an easy way to dodge difficult questions.

Except that in this country, it cannot be unconstitutional because the Constitution itself permits capital punishment.

Except that it wasn't your home state that acted. It was a federal judge who got needlessly involved. He used his personal feelings and opinions to issue an unsound ruling.

Call it clemency. A president who redefines FISA to allow himself to wiretap with impunity could certainly manage that little feat.

Uh, clemency, Dear, from the president has NO effect on murderers convicted in state courts. The president cannot grant clemency to someone sentenced to death by a state court. Only those convicted of federal crimes can receive reprieves or pardons from the president.

[ February 23, 2006, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Why not declare it a matter of "national security"? That would certainly trump any messy little old state law. It worked for a federal one.

George W. Bush is very happy to circumvent international law when he wants to torture some bystander to find out if they know which way the terrorist went. He was even able to subcontract some of that. Perhaps we could subcontract out our need for mercy and an infallible rule of law.

OK, now you're sounding ridiculous. Besides, this thread has nothing to do with Bush, except for your originally stating he could grant clemency to all condemned murderers in the country.

You people really need to get off your anti-Bush obsession. Every single thread around here somehow turns into a blast Bush thread. It's really not healthful.

This thread was and is about a federal judge sticking his personal beliefs into a capital murder case.

You may have your facts incorrect, MIB.

From what I read, state prison officials at San Quentin decided to call off the execution, when two (private) doctors refused to comply with a court order rejecting Morales's request for a stay and allowing the execution to proceed.

The question addressed by Judge Fogel was whether there was an undue risk of physical suffering (which is unconstitutional) from the 3-drug combination (a general anesthetic followed by 2 paralytics) normally used at San Quentin. Judge Fogel ruled that the state could proceed with the execution (1) by using only an overdose of a general anesthetic, or (2) by having a qualified individual (a doctor, I presume) ensure during the execution process that Morales was in fact unconscious when the paralytic was administered.

I've read Judge Fogel's opinion. Here's a link to it:

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/judges.n...al%20Denial.pdf

I would be interested to see you quote the portions of it that you feel constitute Judge Fogel's "personal opinions and feelings," and to identify the parts of it that you characterize as "unsound."

As for the death penalty itself, reasonable minds differ on its constitutionality. It is not mentioned in the Constitution, and has been held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps most spectacularly the Furman case in 1972. I might venture, MIB, that your emotion-laden, "kill-em-all" stance would make you unfit for service on a death-penalty jury, and is the sort of attitude that led the Court to hold that unfettered jury discretion in imposing the death-penalty is per se unconstitutional.

Considering that many other states use the same drug combination and that federal judges in many of those rejected such claims of \"cruel and unusual punishment,\" for a federal judge in CA. to now get involved like he has is judicial overreaching. It's no surprise that this happened in the 9th circuit.

Something cannot be unconstitutional when the Constitution itself permits it. To say otherwise is a purely blatant example of personal bias. There's a reason the Constitution says one cannot be deprived of one's life without due process. This acknowledgment of capital punishment requires due process in such capital cases. BTW, I noticed that you didn't mention Furman was quickly reversed a few short years later. So much for precedence.

You also conveniently ignore the fact that I am opposed to the death penalty. I do not have this "kill-em-all" stance to which you incorrectly allude.

I'm not sure you're aware that judges and courts don't go out and "find" cases to get involved in. Lawsuits are filed by parties (and lawyers), and the courts have to hear them if various prerequisites are met ("case and controversy," standing of the parties, jurisdiction, etc.) Your harangue about "judicial overreaching," simply makes no sense.

I'm glad our country is a republic where there are different opinions, and different jurisdictions approach issues differently. It gives us all choices and strengthens our freedom. Vive la difference, I say. I'm glad I'm in California and within the Ninth Circuit, although I would prefer the death penalty to be outlawed in California. Hopefully you're satisfied where you are.

Read Judge Fogel's decision.

Huh? You must be new to this board. I'm quite aware of how cases reach courts. Judge "Finagle's" opinion was filled with personal bias and feeling, something all too common in the 9th circuit. It's no surprise that the 9th Circus Court of Appeals, for example, is overturned a staggering 75% of the time by SCOTUS.