5 Dramatic Changes That Will Happen If The Liberals Replace Scalia-Death Penalty

Death Penalty

A liberal replacement for Scalia would insure invalidation of more death penalty laws, although not necessarily complete abolition of the penalty. The court has already struck down various death penalty provisions while narrowly upholding others, such as a 2015 decision allowing use of execution drugs that were alleged to cause excruciating pain. That decision, among others, could be overruled or pared back to its specific facts.

Back in 1994 conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia voted against a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the case of one of those men, Henry McCollum. That man became North Carolina’s longest-serving death row inmate after he and his half-brother Leon Brown were convicted of raping and killing an 11-year-old girl.

This news brings to mind Scalia’s insistence that the Supreme Court has never ruled the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who later convinces a court of his innocence, as

Slate points out.

“This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent,” Scalia wrote in a 2009 document of the Court’s order for a federal trial court in Georgia to consider the case of death row inmate Troy Davis. “Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged ‘actual innocence’ is constitutionally cognizable.”

The first established death penalty laws date as far back as the Eighteenth Century B.C. in the Code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon, which codified the death penalty for 25 different crimes. The death penalty was also part of the Fourteenth Century B.C.’s Hittite Code; in the Seventh Century B.C.’s Draconian Code of Athens, which made death the only punishment for all crimes; and in the Fifth Century B.C.’s Roman Law of the Twelve Tablets. Death sentences were carried out by such means as crucifixion, drowning, beating to death, burning alive, and impalement.


5 Dramatic Changes that will happen if the Liberals Replace Scalia-Gun Rights

Gun Rights

A liberal replacement for Scalia might be the fifth vote to cut back on or overrule the 2008 Scalia majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller and subsequent Supreme Court decisions recognizing a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

After going virtually unchallenged for more than one hundred years, Americans’ right to own guns is one of the hottest political topics of the second half of the 20th Century. The issue has calmed somewhat in the early days of the 21st Century, but if history is our guide, the debate is going nowhere until an inevitable and definitive ruling is handed down by the nation’s courts: does the Second Amendment apply to individual citizens?

The right to keep and bear arms fundamentally is the assertion that people, either individually or collectively as a militia, have a personal right to possess weapons. Often, but not always, the arms at the forefront of the conversation are firearms, though other kinds of weapons are involved as well. Debates about the right to keep and bear arms also usually involve issues such as the right of individuals to defend themselves, their families and their property as well as issues such as the right to protect oneself even against one’s own government.

Although much of the history of the laws in the United States have their basis in English common law, the United States and the United Kingdom have very different approaches to the issue of the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms is recognized in the United States Bill of Rights and has been enacted as the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. In contrast, in the United Kingdom, neither English law nor Scottish law discusses the right to bear and keep arms. Although they may carry pepper spray or a side baton, even police officers in Great Britain do not routinely carry firearms. Further, the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibited individuals from carrying offensive weapons, such as firearms and knives, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Moreover, the Firearms Amendment No.) Act 1997 effectively banned in Great Britain the private possession of all modern pistols, even for competitive sporting purposes.


5 Dramatic Changes That Will Happen If The Liberals Replace Scalia-Freedom of Religion

Freedom of Religion

Kiss your religious liberties goodbye. A liberal replacement for Scalia would probably be the fifth vote to overrule the 2014 Hobby Lobby decision and require religious employers and other groups to provide health insurance including free contraceptives and take other actions that they say violates their freedom of religion.

The separation of church and state doesn’t mean “the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued during a speech at Colorado Christian University on Wednesday, according to The Washington Times.

Defending his strict adherence to the plain text of the Constitution, Scalia knocked secular qualms over the role of religion in the public sphere as “utterly absurd,” arguing that the Constitution is only obligated to protect freedom of religion — not freedom from it.

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” the Reagan-appointed jurist told the crowd of about 400 people.

Historically, freedom of religion has been used to refer to the tolerance of different theological systems of belief, while freedom of worship has been defined as freedom of individual action. Each of these have existed to varying degrees. While many countries have accepted some form of religious freedom, this has also often been limited in practice through punitive taxation, repressive social legislation, and political disenfranchisement. Compare examples of individual freedom in Italy or the Muslim tradition of dhimmis, literally “protected individuals” professing an officially tolerated non-Muslim religion.

Freedom of religion or freedom of belief is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. It also includes the freedom to change one’s religion or belief.

Freedom of religion is considered by many people and nations to be a fundamental human right. In a country with a state religion, freedom of religion is generally considered to mean that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion, and does not persecute believers in other faiths.


5 Dramatic Changes that will happen if the Liberals Replace Scalia-Abortion

Abortion

A liberal replacement for Scalia would guarantee almost unlimited abortion rights, probably far into the future.

Many Texas abortion clinics could close, an outcome that may have happened anyway with Scalia on the court.

The court next month will hear the most significant abortion case since 1992, when the justices ruled states could legally impose restrictions on abortion that did not put an “undue burden” on access to the procedure. This term’s abortion case, which centers on restrictions Texas placed on providers and clinics, will again test how far states can go to limit abortion.

The court is expected to be divided along familiar partisan lines, with Justice Anthony Kennedy serving as a possible swing vote. A 4-4 decision in the case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, would leave in place a lower court ruling that upheld the restrictions on clinics.

The debate over whether or not abortion should be a legal option continues to divide Americans long after the US Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision on Roe v. Wade declared the procedure a “fundamental right” on Jan. 22, 1973.

Proponents, identifying themselves as pro-choice, contend that choosing abortion is a right that should not be limited by governmental or religious authority, and which outweighs any right claimed for an embryo or fetus. They say that pregnant women will resort to unsafe illegal abortions if there is no legal option.

Opponents, identifying themselves as pro-life, contend that personhood begins at conception, and therefore abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human being. They say abortion inflicts suffering on the unborn child, and that it is unfair to allow abortion when couples who cannot biologically conceive are waiting to adopt.

Variations exist in arguments on both sides of the debate. Some pro-choice proponents believe abortion should only be used as a last resort, while others advocate unrestricted access to abortion services under any circumstance. Pro-life positions range from opposing abortion under any circumstance to accepting it for situations of rape, incest, or when a woman’s life is at risk.


The Richest Members Of Congress: Jared Polis (D-CO): Estimated Net Worth $74 million

polis2

Polis co founded American Information Systems, AIS, INC while still in college. AIS was an internet access provider and was sold in 1998. In 1996, he co-founded a free electronic greeting card website, Bluemountain.com, which was sold to Excite@Home in 1999 for $430 million in stock and $350 million in cash.

In February 1998 Polis founded ProFlowers, an online florist, in La Jolla, CA. In December of that year, economist Dr. Arthur Laffer began advising Polis and joined ProFlowers as a Director. ProFlowers later renamed Provide Commerce INC went public on the NASDAQ as PRVD on December 17 2003. In 2005, Provide Commerce was acquired by media conglomerate Liberty Media Corporation for $477 million.

Jared Polis was born on May 12, 1975. A Democrat, Polis is the Member of the United States House of Representatives for Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District serving since 2009. He is a former member of the Colorado State Board of Education. Polis is also openly homosexual, a radical liberal and a proud member of the Progressive Caucus in Congress.

In 2008 Polis won a heavily contested Democratic primary election and went on to win the general election on November 4 2008, winning 62% of the vote to succeed Mark Udall. In 2010 Polis won 57 percent of the popular vote to win re election. In 2012 Polis ran uncontested in the Democratic primary and won a third election to Congress with 55 percent of the popular vote.

Polis attended La Jolla Country Day School in San Diego, CA and later received a Bachelor of Arts in politics from Princeton University.

Polis and his homosexual partner Marlon Reis have adopted two children. He is a member of the Jewish faith and resides in Boulder, CO.