Separação de pod(e)res
Hoje, Samuel Alito deu entrada no restrito grupo do Supreme Court e acirrou o meu anti-americanismo secundário (não explico conceito).
Os republicanos disseram Yea(!), os Democratas Nay(!) e porque os primeiros são mais fortes que os últimos, esta pequena maravilha em exposição na foto supra publicada, ou seja, este grandessíssimo badocha bexigoso e conserva integra o corpo da suprema Justiça.
Nós, os do outro lado da água, ficamos a ver mais um capítulo da história da desenvolvidíssima terriola onde as questões se resolvem com grunhidos ou então à lei da bala.
Como evitar, então, ser cosmopolita?
Fuckin´Cowboys.
ZG
Don't be like that ZG!
O Scalia e o Clarence Thomas já andavam a precisar de companhia.
“Does [the death penalty] constitute cruel and unusual punishment?” Scalia asked. “The answer is no. It does not, even if you don’t allow mitigating evidence in. I mean, my Court made up that requirement.... I don’t think my Court is authorized to say, oh, it would be a good idea to have every jury be able to consider mitigating evidence and grant mercy. And, oh, it would be a good idea not to have mandatory death penalties...”
Scalia not only reiterated his support for the death penalty, but called on any judge who found the practice immoral to resign. “In my view,” he said, “the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation rather than simply ignoring duly enacted constitutional laws and sabotaging the death penalty.”
With characteristic cynicism, Scalia quipped, “I am happy to have reached that conclusion [that the death penalty is not immoral] because I like my job and would rather not resign.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jul2002/scal-j05.shtml
Posted by
INF |
7:46 da tarde