Angry Politicians Call SCOTUS Child Rapists Ruling Absurd, Vow to Execute Child Rapists

Who is looking out for the children … obviously not the US Supreme Court.

Earlier this week, the US Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that child rapists cannot be executed stating that such punishment “cruel and unusual” and is unconstitutional. Obviously those that voted in the majority on the SCOTUS must believe that child rape in nor cruel and unusual in its own right. How else could one determine that the punishment against child rape of the death penalty is not proportionate to the crime?

VIDEO

Angry politicians vowed to keep writing laws that condemn child rapists to death, despite a Supreme Court decision saying such punishment is unconstitutional.
 
“Anybody in the country who cares about children should be outraged that we have a Supreme Court that would issue a decision like this,” said Alabama Attorney General Troy King, a Republican. The justices, he said, are “creating a situation where the country is a less safe place to grow up.” (Yahoo News)

A battle seems to be certainly brewing between the SCOTUS and lawmakers. The idea that criminals are granted rights and escape the ultimate punishment is utterly disgusting. The fact that the heinous act of raping a child,  the most innocent among us is not looked upon as murder is absurd. What does the SCOTUS think that the rapist is doing to the child, but murdering their future? Instead, liberal justices make excuses for child rapists.

In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote “the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child,” despite the horrendous nature of the crime.

Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal called the ruling “incredibly absurd,” “a clear abuse of judicial authority” and said officials will “evaluate ways to amend our statute to maintain death as a penalty for this horrific crime.”

Introduction of New Criminal Code for Aruba … Let’s Hope They Actually Use It

 The Netherlands Antilles and Aruba have promised to introduce a revised Criminal Codes before the new constitutional structure. The introduction of a new criminal code is one thing, its implementation in practical use is quite another. Also the use of a revised criminal code without preferential treatment and cronyism is a third.

Introduction of new criminal code final

ORANJESTAD – The Neth.Antilles and Aruba have promised to introduce the revised Criminal Codes before the new constitutional structure in the Kingdom. That appears from the list of decisions taken during the tripartite deliberation between the ministers of Justice of the Netherlands, Antilles, and Aruba last Monday.

The committee that was established especially for this has already submitted the concept of the Aruban Criminal Code last year. But the process was after that idle due to shortage of government legislation jurists that gave preference to other subjects like the National budget. The government has now promised to give the minister council the concept before September 1, so they can forward it to the Advisory Council.

Read more

US Supreme Court Should be Ashamed … 5-4 Vote Child Rapists Can’t be Executed

Think Presidential elections do not matter? Who do you think appoints Supreme Court Justices? You best remember this come November! Take a good look how the two Presidential candidates answered the question. Obama has always tapped danced around the death penalty issue like the true leftist that he is. Obama has said that he disagrees with the SCOTUS ruling, yet he is against the death penalty. Meanwhile John McCain stated the following, “As a father, I believe there is no more sacred responsibility in American society than that of protecting the innocence of our children.”

What type of SCOTUS justices do you think each candidate would appoint?

Shame on the US Supreme Court … protecting child rapists as if they are people to. How sick is this that rapist’s rights trump innocent children’s rights? Think Presidential elections do not matter? The liberal judges of the Supreme Court could care less about your children’s rights. Conservative judges like Samuel Alito dissented stating, “The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapist is grave.”

The United States Supreme Court voted yesterday, 5–4, that child rapists cannot be executed. Let me first say that they should all hang their head in shame at this heinous ruling. The SCOTUS concluded that capital punishment for crimes against individuals can be applied only to murderers. If the gutless SCOTUS judges want to hide behind the “cruel and unusual punishment” montra, maybe they would like to explain to sexually abused and exploited children everywhere that child rape is not “cruel and unusual” in its own right as a crime. 

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that execution in this case would violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, citing “evolving standards of decency” in the United States.

Such standards, the justice wrote, forbid capital punishment for any crime against an individual other than murder.

“We conclude that, in determining whether the death penalty is excessive, 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,” wrote Kennedy, who is not related to the convicted rapist.

The case in question before the SCOTUS was in regards to 43 year old Patrick Kennedy who was appealing his case where he raped his 8 year old step daughter in her bed.

Patrick Kennedy, 43, would have been the first convicted rapist in the United States since 1964 to be executed in a case in which the victim was not killed.

Kennedy was convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter in her bed. The attack caused severe emotional trauma, internal injuries and bleeding to the child, requiring extensive surgery, Louisiana prosecutors said.

The liberal judges of the SCOTUS could obviously care less about children and child rape than they do about criminals.

In the majority opinion, Anthony Kennedy acknowledged “the victim’s fright, the sense of betrayal, and the nature of her injuries caused more prolonged physical and mental suffering than, say, a sudden killing by an unseen assassin.”

But the justice — supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — wrote that when determining what punishment the Eighth Amendment prohibits, “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” must be taken into account.

Aruba: Natalee Holloway: Deepak & Satish Kalpoe Suing Dr Phil for Defamation … Doesn’t One Have to First have Character?

Can people who knowingly and willfully lie, obstruct justice and bear false witness have the credibility to sue for defamation? Doesn’t one first need character in order to sue for it’s damage? The Kalpoe’s and Aruba have been dancing around the truth in the Natalee Holloway case for 3 years running. The question that needs to be addressed is did either Deepak or Satish Kalpoe have the ability to sue for libel seeing that their reputations were already tarnished prior to the Dr Phil tape. Namely, their reputations were tarnished by their own doing. By the way, why does one wash their car in the middle of the night? A car that Natalee Holloway was last seen in and never was heard from again?

Satish, Deepak and Dr. Phil

The defamation lawsuit filed by the two Surinamese brothers, Deepak and Satish Kalpoe, against Dr. Phil McGraw and CBS over a broadcast concerning the disappearance of Natalee Holloway continues to go forward. The first question that one would ask is, how can one claim defamation of charters if they are void of said character? Should the law suit go forward? Probably not; however, I say why not … discovery and interrogatories of the Kalpoe brothers might just be what the doctor ordered to help find answers and “Justice for Natalee”.

A lawsuit filed in December 2006 by Surinamese brothers Deepak and Satish Kalpoe maintains they were defamed in a Sept. 15, 2005, “Dr. Phil” show, when it was alleged they gave Holloway a date-rape drug and had non- consensual group sex with her. They also contend the episode implied they helped kill Holloway and dispose of her body.

What did they know and when and why did they lie?

The “Dr. Phil” segment included statements by Deepak Kalpoe that were “significantly manipulated and altered,” the suit alleges. In addition to defamation, the Kalpoes’ suit alleges invasion of privacy, emotional distress, fraud, deceit and civil conspiracy.

But in court papers filed Wednesday, attorneys for CBS, McGraw and Kay Skeeters — widow of Jeremy Skeeters, a private investigator hired by McGraw to interview Deepak Kalpoe — maintain the brothers are “libel-proof.”

They say the brothers’ reputations were irreparably stained by prior published accounts of the Holloway case, meaning they cannot claim to have been damaged by the “Dr. Phil” broadcast.

Satish Kalpoe’s June 24, 2005 important and must read statement

Read all of the suspect & witness statements HERE and HERE

What reputation does one have when they continually lie in witness statements and provide constant inconsistencies in their stories?

One needs to ask themselves, what reputation did the Kalpoe’s have prior to the Dr. Phil report other than that of suspects in the murder of Natalee Holloway and admitted liars? The Kalpoe’s were last seen leaving Carlos N’ Charlies with Natalee Holloway along with Joran Van der Sloot, Natalee was never seen again. It was also the Kalpoe’s that were complicit in the lie that they dropped off Natalee Holloway that night at the Holiday Inn and subsequently implicated two black security guards for her disappearance.

The position of the Dr. Phil defense attorneys is as follows:

The brothers also did not ask for a correction of the “Dr. Phil” broadcast in time and are limited public figures, meaning they have to prove malice by CBS and the other defendants, the defense attorneys argue.

The defense attorneys have a motion pending Aug. 5 to dismiss the case on grounds the plaintiffs’ lawyers disobeyed court orders to turn over information.

Obscenity Trial Suspended After Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Report of Judge Posted Sexual Pics on Web (Cow Porn???)

Just file this one under … WTF!!!

Judge Alex Kozinski, you can take your name off any list or any chance that you ever had of being on the US Supreme Court after this incident. An obscenity trial has been suspended because of a report that Federal Judge, Alex Kozinski, had sexual images on his web site. Define irony or is it hypocrisy,  a judge presiding over an obscenity trial exploring the extreme fringe of pornography posted explicit photos and videos on his personal Web site that might be viewed as the same.  The judge thought the material could not be seen by the public. Question, does it matter? If Judge Alex Kozinski wanted to hide them from the public eye then he knew the pics were wrong.

The revelation about Kozinski came as opening statements were under way in the trial of Ira Isaacs, a businessman accused of breaking U.S. obscenity laws by distributing pornographic movies that depict extreme fetishes, including bestiality.

Exclusive: Kozinski’s Porn — Images from Judge Alex Kozinski’s Web Site (WARNING … WARNING … WARNING: Some if the links in the post are not suitable for children or work. They are pics that were on the Judge’s website) BTW, the judge’s website has since been taken down. However, that has not stopped others from getting screen captures.

Obscenity trial suspended because of Judge’s cow porn

A closely watched obscenity trial in Los Angeles federal court was suspended Wednesday after the judge acknowledged maintaining his own publicly accessible website featuring sexually explicit photos and videos.

Read more