Governor Bobby Jindal released a statement today, outraged at the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the death penalty in a Louisiana case given for a man convicted of child rape (Patrick Kennedy case). The Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for the brutal crime of child rape was “unconstitutional,” and Jindal released the following statement calling their ruling an “affront to the people of Louisiana” and vowing to amend the state’s laws to maintain death as a penalty for the crime.
Governor Jindal said, “I am outraged by the Supreme Court’s decision. It is an affront to the people of Louisiana and the jury’s unanimous decision in this case.
“The opinion reflects a clear abuse of judicial authority, trampling the constitutional authority of states to act through the legislative process. The Court found, ‘there is a distinction between intentional first degree murder on the one hand and nonhomicide crimes against individual persons, even including child rape, on the other. The latter crimes may be devastating in their harm, as here, but in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public, they cannot be compared to murder in their severity and irrevocability.’
“The Supreme Court is dead wrong.
“It is fundamentally improper for the Supreme Court to base an important decision like this on its ‘independent judgment’ about a perceived ‘national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape.’ The opinion reads more like an out-of-control legislative debate than a constitutional analysis.
“One thing is clear: the five members of the Court who issued the opinion do not share the same ‘standards of decency’ as the people of Louisiana. One Justice said that ‘the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child.’ That is incredibly absurd. The most repugnant crimes deserve the harshest penalties, and nothing is more repugnant than the brutal rape of an eight-year-old child.
“We will evaluate ways to amend our statute to maintain death as a penalty for this horrific crime.”
Jindal is trying to get everybody to watch the red ball in his right hand, while he
gives us the shaft with the left hand. I am mad and I want to let people know I am mad even if I can not do nothing about. Now this pay raise thing is nothing the
voters need to even talk to me about, because they all ready know , I had the power to stop that. Their only chance is that I buckle under the threat of being recalled. Written by Diaperman
on 6/27/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Jindal can't do anything about the Supreme Court's decision. He can do something about the Legislative pay raise. Where's his outrage at the Legislature? Written by David Quidd
on 6/27/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns...... By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer...... 9 minutes ago.... WASHINGTON - Americans can keep guns at home for self-defense, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in the justices' first-ever pronouncement on the meaning of gun rights under the Second Amendment...... The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most federal firearms restrictions intact............. District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty responded with a plan to require residents of the nation's capital to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Fenty said....... The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."... The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia....... Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted...... The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns........ Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."..... Scalia's opinion dealt almost exclusively with self-defense in the home, acknowledging only briefly in his lengthy historical analysis that early Americans also valued gun rights because of hunting....... The brevity of Scalia's treatment of gun ownership for hunting and sports-shooting is explained by the case before the court. The Washington law at issue, like many gun control laws around the country, concerns heavily populated areas, not hunting grounds....... In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."....... He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."...... Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."...... Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter....... Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association......... The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome....... Chicago mayor Richard Daley said he didn't know how the high court ruling would affect the city, but said that the ruling was "a very frightening decision." He predicted an end to Chicago's handgun ban would spark new violence and force the city to raise taxes to pay for new police...... Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said........ The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest......... Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his Capitol Hill home a short distance from the Supreme Court....... "I'm thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household in my home," Heller said shortly after the opinion was announced........ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right........ The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check........ Thursday's decision was embraced by the president, said White House press secretary Dana Perino. "This has been the administration's long-held view," Perino said. "The president is also pleased that the court concluded that the D.C. firearm laws violate that right."............... White House reaction was restrained. "We're pleased that the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said................. Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."......... In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."........ The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks......... Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense......... The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights......... Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions......... The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
Written by So who is telling who how they are going to rule?
on 6/26/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
By all means, Ralphie, let's politicize this issue. I mean, is this really the place to stump for the GOP? I mean, really? Pathetic. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 6/26/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
This is a horrible subject all around no matter how a person presents it... or even attempts to talk about it…… This is a major, major, major, TABOO and a sick, sick, sick no – no…… I say take the scum behind the barn and shoot it...... Just put it out of its misery…… There is no understanding when it comes to something as horrendous as this....... Written by
on 6/26/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Two different issues: 1 - Elect a Republican president or get prepared for a lot more liberal bullshit from courts all over the country. End of story.
2 - Jindal's comment is irrelevant. Aren't laws the jurisdiction of the legislature (and independent body) and sentences the jurisdiction of the courts (an independent body)??? -- If the Louisiana legislature legalized child rape, would he veto it, or just say he strongly disagrees with the decision?? Written by ralphie
on 6/25/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Noladue, we agree. While Jindal can do nothing about the Supreme Court decision, he could do something about the raises. Coward when it comes to his political hide. Written by RhettsWife
on 6/25/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
WHile I agree that the supreme court made a terrible mistake, I find it hard to understand how cowardly Jindal can say, "It is an affront to the people of Louisiana ..." What does he care what the people think. Written by noladude
on 6/25/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Governor Jindal has our full support.
This is too important of an issue to not be dealt with properly.
Denise Marhoefer
Independent Investigative Journalist
The Defense Foundation For Children USA
www.defensefoundationforchildren.com/
defensefoundation@gmail.com
Miracles Of Hope Network www.miracles-of-hope.com
The Juvenile Defender
www.thejuveniledefender.com
Voicemail/Fax 1-267-327-2215
All of our efforts are dedicated to the creation and restoration of
good in the lives of children--
Written by The Defense Foundation For Children USA
on 6/25/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
