• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News

Status
Not open for further replies.
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Metaphoreus said:
It's not as straightforward as you make it appear. It's true that the governor doesn't decide whether a court has jurisdiction to act. In this case, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma has long held that it has no jurisdiction to order a stay of execution. An order from a court without jurisdiction is void, plain and simple. (That's not to say ignoring the order would be prudent. EDIT: In fact, I think the prudent thing for the governor to have done--assuming the governor, herself, has authority to delay the executions--would have been to state that, though the Supreme Court's order is void for lack of jurisdiction, she would use her authority to order the executions delayed until the two high courts resolved their dispute.)
Click to expand...

The governor is not a court. Only a court can declare an order "void for lack of jurisdiction." It really is that simple. Otherwise, the executive and Congress can ignore all judicial rulings by declaring a lack of jurisdiction. This literally never happens because it so undermines the rule of law.

Metaphoreus said:
And while it's true that the Oklahoma Constitution provides that, "in the event there is any conflict as to jurisdiction, the Supreme Court shall determine which court has jurisdiction and such determination shall be final," that provision doesn't permit the Supreme Court to simply confer jurisdiction on the Court of Criminal Appeals where there isn't any to begin with. The Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to order stays of execution as provided in Okla. Stat. tit. 22, s. 1001.1, which provides in pertinent part:



The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that it had no jurisdiction to order a stay of execution, because there was no "action challenging the conviction or sentence of death . . . pending before it." Instead, there was merely a civil lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court. Judge Lumpkin, in a special concurrence to the CCA's Order Denying Stays of Execution, pointed out that the convicts could easily invoke the CCA's power to order a stay of execution by filing "an application for post-conviction relief with the Court of Criminal Appeals . . . . [which includes] any challenge to the execution protocol." But the convicts' attorneys refused to do so.
Click to expand...

As the Oklahoma Supreme Court had already ruled, a challenge to the execution protocol is not an "action challenging the conviction or sentence of death" but is rather a civil action, so they could not in fact have done that. (See also Hill v. McDonough in the federal context.) And since the Oklahoma Supreme Court determines jurisdiction in the event of a conflict, the CCA could not override its determination in that regard. And it is not correct to say that the Oklahoma Constitution "doesn't permit the Supreme Court to simply confer jurisdiction on the Court of Criminal Appeals where there isn't any to begin with." It permits exactly that, because what jurisdiction "there is to begin with" is by the Constitution vested in the Oklahoma Supreme Court to supremely decide when there is "a conflict" about the matter. In other words, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has the supreme authority to construe jurisdictional provisions within the state constitution. So if it says the CCA has jurisdiction, then the CCA has jurisdiction. The CCA cannot question it and the governor sure as hell cannot question it.

Metaphoreus said:
And, when reading about this, people should bear in mind that the convicts aren't alleging that their Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment are being violated. In fact, they withdrew every challenge they had originally made based on the federal Constitution so that the case couldn't be removed to federal court. Their complaint is that their right to access the Oklahoma courts is being violated by the secrecy of the identities of the executioners and the source(s) of the drugs that will be used to execute them. If they prevail on their claim, the remedy won't be to overturn their convictions or sentences; it would be to order that the executions and sources be identified. In other words, their challenge is not one which could directly lead to the sparing of their lives.
Click to expand...

I agree, which is precisely why the action does not lie in habeas and why the CCA was wrong to suggest (over the supreme declaration of the Oklahoma Supreme Court) that the claim could be heard by filing an application for post-conviction relief with the Court of Criminal Appeals.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
mark-harris-nc-gop-primary-e1398259584865-638x426.jpg


On Tuesday, all four Republican candidates vying for North Carolina’s Senate seat were asked if climate change is a fact. All four said no.

It was the first televised debate of the primary campaign, and featured four candidates: State House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-NC), who is leading in funding and in the polls; physician Greg Brannon, a Tea Party member and Tillis’ main rival; Charlotte pastor Mark Harris; and nurse practitioner Heather Grant. It was the first of three scheduled debates, after which a primary election on May 6 will decide which of the four will face off against incumbent Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) in the fall.
“Is climate change a fact?” the moderator asked in the video, which was posted by Buzzfeed. The questioned produced a brief flurry of laughter from the audience as well as several repressed snickers from the candidates. All four then followed with a curt “no” — though Brannon did append “God controls the climate” to his answer.
Click to expand...
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...rolina-gop-senate-candidates-climate-deniers/

Jesus Fucking Christ.

There was a time when Newt Gringrich did a climate change commercial and John McCain supported a Cap & Trade plan. And then the GOP went mental. Again.

You know . . . I hated it and disagreed with it but I could at least understand the opposition to embryonic stem cell research. This is just pure denialism and support of pseudoscience.
 
F

FyreWulff

Member
WayneMorse said:
Oklahoma governor says executions to proceed despite court-ordered stays: Mary Fallin said state supreme court lacks authority to stay executions, but experts say governor's order legally untenable
Click to expand...

I've made it clear before that I'm anti death penalty. With that viewpoint out there, this almost feels like some of these conservatives feel the public may be swinging back to banning it again and almost seem desperate to execute criminals before it's banned or suspended again.

"Tough on crime" taken to it's morbid peak.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
APKmetsfan said:
OVGQYI9.jpg
Click to expand...

It should be pretty clear what he's doing here, or what he was told to do. Harry Reid got in some trouble a few years ago for saying Obama didn't use a "Negro dialect" and didn't receive much of any pushback from the media or democrats. The GOP has decided attacking Reid is an allegedly good way to build base momentum, as attacking the Koch's allegedly is for democrats. The inevitable denouncements that occur now will spur Bundey, Fox, and republicans to point out no such outrage occurred on the left when Reid used the same word.

Nevermind that Bundey went overboard into blatant racial rhetoric; the problem isn't saying "Negro." If we had a decent media it would be very easy to step over this trap and simply ask Bundey supporters if they believe blacks are better off now than they were as slaves. Yes or no question.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
It should be pretty clear what he's doing here, or what he was told to do. Harry Reid got in some trouble a few years ago for saying Obama didn't use a "Negro dialect" and didn't receive much of any pushback from the media or democrats. The GOP has decided attacking Reid is an allegedly good way to build base momentum, as attacking the Koch's allegedly is for democrats. The inevitable denouncements that occur now will spur Bundey, Fox, and republicans to point out no such outrage occurred on the left when Reid used the same word.

Nevermind that Bundey went overboard into blatant racial rhetoric; the problem isn't saying "Negro." If we had a decent media it would be very easy to step over this trap and simply ask Bundey supporters if they believe blacks are better off now than they were as slaves. Yes or no question.
Click to expand...

I got that picture on Twitter. I didnt highlight the word. I don't think negro is the problem is everything that comes after
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
APKmetsfan said:
I got that picture on Twitter. I didnt highlight the word. I don't think negro is the problem is everything that comes after
Click to expand...

Same applies to Reid. My point is that I believe Bundy's intention was to create a false equivalency between what he and Reid said, and this is no coincidence given the GOP's Reid obsession.

Perhaps initially his intention was to use Negro in passing, but instead he went full retard. Regardless by the end of today I guarantee you Fox, right wing media, etc will be noting Harry Reid "said the exact thing and wasn't called a racist by the left."
 
F

FyreWulff

Member
Damn people sitting outside and socializing. What the fuck do they think they're doing bonding as a family. Everyone should be watching their 70" TV inside.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
speculawyer said:
mark-harris-nc-gop-primary-e1398259584865-638x426.jpg



http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...rolina-gop-senate-candidates-climate-deniers/

Jesus Fucking Christ.

There was a time when Newt Gringrich did a climate change commercial and John McCain supported a Cap & Trade plan. And then the GOP went mental. Again.

You know . . . I hated it and disagreed with it but I could at least understand the opposition to embryonic stem cell research. This is just pure denialism and support of pseudoscience.
Click to expand...

This at least shows that no matter what they say, they can't change. The party won't be anywhere near relevant in 30 years if this keeps up.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
Same applies to Reid. My point is that I believe Bundy's intention was to create a false equivalency between what he and Reid said, and this is no coincidence given the GOP's Reid obsession.

Perhaps initially his intention was to use Negro in passing, but instead he went full retard. Regardless by the end of today I guarantee you Fox, right wing media, etc will be noting Harry Reid "said the exact thing and wasn't called a racist by the left."
Click to expand...
http://danaloeschradio.com/cliven-bundys-remark/
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
I would add that the obvious difference between Bundy and Reid is the latter didn't imply they were better off as slaves. What he said was still stupid as shit but they are hardly equivalent.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
sc0la said:
I would add that the obvious difference between Bundy and Reid is the latter didn't imply they were better off as slaves. What he said was still stupid as shit but they are hardly equivalent.
Click to expand...

Agreed although both are racially insensitive; Reid basically said Obama doesn't talk black, which is a slippery slope that goes by "x doesn't act black" and other blatant racial beliefs.

Bundy literally said blacks were better off as slaves, which is about as extreme as you can go.
 
A

Averon

Member
Seeing the Bundy supporters backtrack their support will be a laugh riot.
How long before Fox News completely drop Bundy?
 
Z

zero shift

Banned
S

speculawyer

Member
APKmetsfan said:
OVGQYI9.jpg
Click to expand...

They didn't have nothing to do.
They didn't have nothing for their kids to do.
They didn't have nothing for their young girls to do.
They didn't get no more freedom.

Maybe he is just trolling us all with double negatives. He is really saying:

They have something to do.
They have something to for their kids to do.
They have something to for their young girls to do.
They got more freedom.
 
K

kehs

Banned
speculawyer said:
They didn't have nothing to do.
They didn't have nothing for their kids to do.
They didn't have nothing for their young girls to do.
They didn't get no more freedom.

Maybe he is just trolling us all with double negatives. He is really saying:

They have something to do.
They have something to for their kids to do.
They have something to for their young girls to do.
They got more freedom.
Click to expand...

Who leaked you the new Fox talking points?
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Averon said:
Seeing the Bundy supporters backtrack their support will be a laugh riot.
How long before Fox News completely drop Bundy?
Click to expand...

Watch them defend him. "He's not racist, he just needs to be trained to say it in a more politically correct way" or "He's blaming the government, not the black people".

The "government plantation" argument isn't exactly new to the republican party.
 
Joe Molotov

Joe Molotov

Member
zero shift said:
If I were to take his heresay seriously I would actually be surprised that there were only half a dozen people relaxing outside out of the hundreds who likely live there. You would probably see more deadbeats loitering around on your average apartment complex.
Click to expand...

How many people are loitering in front of the Bundy Plantation with nothing to do, right this minute?
C2xkH.png
 
S

speculawyer

Member
At the national level, over 58 percent of Congressional Republicans throughout the House and Senate have gone on record denying that climate change is happening.

Ugh.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
empty vessel said:
The governor is not a court. Only a court can declare an order "void for lack of jurisdiction." It really is that simple. Otherwise, the executive and Congress can ignore all judicial rulings by declaring a lack of jurisdiction. This literally never happens because it so undermines the rule of law.
Click to expand...

I agree that it would undermine the appearance of the rule of law, but where a court acts without jurisdiction, it doesn't act under the rule of law. So I wouldn't say that ignoring the ruling necessarily undermines the rule of law. However, it's an act that shouldn't be taken except in the most extreme situations, where there are no available alternatives. This wasn't such a case.

empty vessel said:
As the Oklahoma Supreme Court had already ruled, a challenge to the execution protocol is not an "action challenging the conviction or sentence of death" but is rather a civil action, so they could not in fact have done that.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anything from the OK Supreme Court saying that's the case. In this order, they said that the "district court has jurisdiction to hear the merits of Plaintiffs' declaratory judgment action," but didn't explain why. Then there's this opinion, wherein the Supreme Court again asked the Court of Criminal Appeals to stay the execution. (It's obvious I'm missing something in between the above order and opinion, because the dissent begins by saying, "For the third time in this case.") There's also the Supreme Court's order staying execution, in which they indicate that they "exercised [their] constitutional authority to determine the appropriate tribunal for resolution of the stay issue," but not saying they had done so with respect to the subject matter of the declaratory judgment proceeding. Finally, there is the opinion handed down last night, rejecting the convicts' appeal. But none of these make the statement that you do.

That last document, the opinion from last night, indicates that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to hear the appeal exists by the OK Constitution's grant of "appellate jurisdiction over 'all cases at law and equity'" and OK's declaratory judgment statute, "which states declaratory judgments 'shall be reviewable in the same manner as other judgments.'" But, again, it says nothing about jurisdiction over the subject matter of the challenge, i.e., a challenge to the execution protocol. Would you please direct me to your source?

Significantly, in the order staying execution, the Supreme Court based its power to stay the executions on the common law "rule of necessity." Yet, in its final opinion, it based its power to stay the executions on the declaratory judgment statute's grant of authority to make "further relief based upon [the declaratory judgment] . . .whenever such relief becomes necessary and proper after the [judgment] has been made." As a result, inmates condemned to death now have two general avenues for obtaining a stay of execution: the first is the traditional post-conviction appeal authorized by statute and the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The second is a civil declaratory judgment action.

empty vessel said:
And it is not correct to say that the Oklahoma Constitution "doesn't permit the Supreme Court to simply confer jurisdiction on the Court of Criminal Appeals where there isn't any to begin with." It permits exactly that, because what jurisdiction "there is to begin with" is by the Constitution vested in the Oklahoma Supreme Court to supremely decide when there is "a conflict" about the matter.
Click to expand...

The OK Constitution doesn't grant the Supreme Court the authority to decide when there is a conflict. It grants the Supreme Court the authority to resolve any conflict that arises. But if there's no conflict, then the Supreme Court has nothing to resolve. The Supreme Court can't just one day decide that it's bored hearing contract cases, declare a conflict, and decide that appeals in contract cases have to be addressed by the CCA. The Supreme Court isn't supreme over the CCA except in resolving a conflict regarding which high court has jurisdiction.

Even ignoring the lack of a conflict, the Supreme Court can't just ignore the legislature's enactments regarding how the Court of Criminal Appeals' jurisdiction may be invoked. Two provisions of Article VII, s. 4 of the OK Constitution are relevant in this regard. First, the CCA has "exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases until otherwise provided by statute." (I'm not sure if that "until" is actually "until"--rather than "unless"--in the actual OK Constitution, rather than a typo in the online version.) Second, the Constitution provides, "The appellate and the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and all other appellate courts shall be invoked in the manner provided by law." So the CCA is bound by the legislature's enactments in exercising its jurisdiction, and, because of the incorporation of those enactments into the Constitution by reference, so is the Supreme Court.
 
W

WayneMorse

Banned
Plinko said:
This at least shows that no matter what they say, they can't change. The party won't be anywhere near relevant in 30 years if this keeps up.
Click to expand...

I don't know why people are so quick to write off the GOP. The fact is that a large chunk of the country are true believer conservatives who don't believe in climate change or evolution or the big bang.

When the Democrats are back to where they were in 1965, with 2/3rds majorities in both chambers with liberals controlling both, and dominance of governorships and sate legislatures, then we can start talking about the GOP's demise.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
WayneMorse said:
I don't know why people are so quick to write off the GOP. The fact is that a large chunk of the country are true believer conservatives who don't believe in climate change or evolution or the big bang.

When the Democrats are back to where they were in 1965, with 2/3rds majorities in both chambers with liberals controlling both, and dominance of governorships and sate legislatures, then we can start talking about the GOP's demise.
Click to expand...
And things went real well after that for the Democrats!
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Well, gotta love how conservatives are backhanding Obama while simultaneously denouncing what Cliven Bundy said.

Ted Cruz
Sen. Cruz (R-TX) made waves on Wednesday when he lamented that the government’s purpose was to protect its people, “not using the jackboot of authoritarianism to come against the citizens.” And so the Bundy standoff, he asserted, “is the unfortunate and tragic culmination of the path that President Obama has set the federal government on.”

In an email, the senator’s Press Secretary Catherine Frazier said outright: “Those comments are completely unacceptable.”
Click to expand...

Assemblywoman Michele Fiore
The Nevada Republican famously clashed with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes last week, declaring “We will not allow governance by gunpoint” and deeming the BLM’s behavior “suspicious.”
Click to expand...

Sen. Dean Heller
In a televised debate last week with Sen. Reid, Heller (R-NV) pushed back against his Democratic counterpart’s “domestic terrorist” comments and said: “What Sen. Reid may call domestic terrorists, I call patriots.” The Republican also suggested the government ought to hold hearings to figure out who is accountable for the standoff.

Heller spox Chandler Smith told the Times that the senator “completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way.”
Click to expand...

Sen. Rand Paul
Earlier this week, Sen. Paul (R-KY) zoned in on the policy questions at hand, asserting that the Bundy case shows “there is a legitimate constitutional question here about whether the state should be in charge of endangered species or whether the federal government should be.” He also pushed back against Sen. Harry Reid‘s inflammatory labeling of Bundy as a “domestic terrorist.”

In a statement on Thursday morning, the senator said: “His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him.”
Click to expand...

And so forth and so on.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/conservative-politicians-and-pundits-react-to-bundys-negro-remarks/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
3K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom