The Supreme Court has me befuddled. On principle I am 0 for 3 on the three big cases the last two days, 1 for 3 on desired outcome.
1. On the Exxon Valdez case, it just seems arbitrary that the US Supreme Court would get involved and decide he amount of a punitive damage award. Besides, that was an enormous environmental disaster, not to mention the losses suffered by fishing and tourism. And how is Exxon NOT liable for their employee's actions, even if those actions are contrary to Exxon policy? AND, it's not like Exxon can't afford it.
2. On the Louisiana capital punishment case, if the court is not ruling that capital punishment per se is cruel and unusual punishment, then how is it even their place to decide as to whether a particular crime is a capital crime? I don't get that. Such a decision belongs with the legislative branch.
Child rape ought to be a capital crime if you ask me.
3. On the Washington DC gun laws, well, I agree with others that there ought to be a right of gun ownership and I support concealed weapons laws, though I think we need to be sensible about background checks and waiting periods and such. But for the life of me I have never been able to find the right for individuals to bear arms in the second amendment. I'm glad the DC law was struck down, and so maybe the second amendment came in handy in so doing, but that's not why the bill of rights is there, to come in handy I mean.
Well, that's just me.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
You have some good questions there. I was wondering many of the same things. But the Supremes seem to operate in a slightly different world.
Post a Comment