He was on a quail hunt, was Dick there also? Originally Posted by i'va biggen
I'm sure there was some around. You just can't keep your mind off of it can you?I was speaking about dead eye Dick Chaney, the quail hunter. Naturally a fag like you would jump on a dick. Was your pussy itching when you saw the word dick?
Dead dick or live Dick you really don't care which one do you?
You wanted a "link" ... your question fits the bill.
Have some more popcorn on me! Originally Posted by LexusLover
Post inflammatory and erroneous billboards for the liberal predators are you?Originally Posted by SisterTwister
However, Justice Scalia's words regarding that decision are often quoted out of context, leaving readers with the mistaken impression that he believed it was perfectly acceptable for our legal system to execute people whom we knew to be innocent. In the fuller context, what he was actually expressing was that once a person had been fairly convicted and sentenced in court, and had exhausted all his possible avenues of appeal, a last-minute claim of innocence was not by itself sufficient grounds for further delaying the carrying out of the sentence.
Scalia concurred with the court's 6-3 Herrera v. Collins decision that a claim of innocence should not serve as the sole grounds for habeas corpus relief, stating in his written opinion that sufficient legal relief already existed for people presenting new evidence of innocence (not that factual innocence was irrelevant) and that ruling otherwise would impose an unmanageable burden on lower courts to review newly discovered evidence:
Scalia:
We granted certiorari on the question whether it violates due process or constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for a State to execute a person who, having been convicted of murder after a full and fair trial, later alleges that newly discovered evidence shows him to be "actually innocent." I would have preferred to decide that question, particularly since, as the Court's discussion shows, it is perfectly clear what the answer is: There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction. In saying that such a right exists, the dissenters apply nothing but their personal opinions to invalidate the rules of more than two thirds of the States, and a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure for which this Court itself is responsible. If the system that has been in place for 200 years (and remains widely approved) "shocks" the dissenters' consciences, perhaps they should doubt the calibration of their consciences, or, better still, the usefulness of "conscience shocking" as a legal test.
I nonetheless join the entirety of the Court's opinion, including the final portion, because there is no legal error in deciding a case by assuming arguendo that an asserted constitutional right exists, and because I can understand, or at least am accustomed to, the reluctance of the present Court to admit publicly that Our Perfect Constitution lets stand any injustice, much less the execution of an innocent man who has received, though to no avail, all the process that our society has traditionally deemed adequate. With any luck, we shall avoid ever having to face this embarrassing question again, since it is improbable that evidence of innocence as convincing as today's opinion requires would fail to produce an executive pardon.
My concern is that in making life easier for ourselves we not appear to make it harder for the lower federal courts, imposing upon them the burden of regularly analyzing newly discovered evidence of innocence claims in capital cases (in which event such federal claims, it can confidently be predicted, will become routine and even repetitive). A number of Courts of Appeals have hitherto held ... that newly discovered evidence relevant only to a state prisoner's guilt or innocence is not a basis for federal habeas corpus relief ... I do not understand it to be the import of today's decision that those holdings are to be replaced with a strange regime that assumes permanently, though only "arguendo," that a constitutional right exists, and expends substantial judicial resources on that assumption. The Court's extensive and scholarly discussion of the question presented in the present case does nothing but support our statement in Townsend, and strengthen the validity of the holdings based upon it.End of Scalia Quote.
Was your pussy itching .... Originally Posted by i'va biggenI will ask her. When was the last time one was around you long enough to ask?
I'm sure there was some around. You just can't keep your mind off of it can you?
Dead dick or live Dick you really don't care which one do you?
You wanted a "link" ... your question fits the bill.
Have some more popcorn on me! Originally Posted by LexusLover
I will ask her. When was the last time one was around you long enough to ask?who was the one running at the word Dick all aflutter? I was speaking of a person, while you were looking for lunch. Isn't it time for you to come out? I was referring to your pussy, not one of your imaginary women.
If we exchanged dollars for every time each other initiated a discussion involving the words fag, dick, and other male parts, you would owe me a substantial amount of money after the "offset"!
Your use of the word "dick" in this forum : http://www.eccie.net/search.php?searchid=7602756
Just for starters! BTW: How's the "popcorn" holding out?
Mine: http://www.eccie.net/search.php?searchid=7602768
Over 1100 times by you and less than 100 times by me. 10x's plus more times by you! Sounds like you be the one with a "dick" obsession to me! How's the popcorn holding out .... IvaLittleOne? Originally Posted by LexusLover
I will ask her. When was the last time one was around you long enough to ask?We straight males are not afraid to say the word dick, it is you closeted Homo's that try and hide your affliction.
If we exchanged dollars for every time each other initiated a discussion involving the words fag, dick, and other male parts, you would owe me a substantial amount of money after the "offset"!
Your use of the word "dick" in this forum : http://www.eccie.net/search.php?searchid=7602756
Just for starters! BTW: How's the "popcorn" holding out?
Mine: http://www.eccie.net/search.php?searchid=7602768
Over 1100 times by you and less than 100 times by me. 10x's plus more times by you! Sounds like you be the one with a "dick" obsession to me! How's the popcorn holding out .... IvaLittleOne? Originally Posted by LexusLover
Your use of the word "dick" in this forum...How many times did IvanLittleOne go back and forth in every thread stupidly calling IB a "chicken dick"... he has ruined countless threads that way... he has a dick obsession all right - he can't stop thinking and posting about IB's dick!
Over 1100 times by you and less than 100 times by me. 10x's plus more times by you! Sounds like you be the one with a "dick" obsession to me! Originally Posted by LexusLover
How many times did IvanLittleOne go back and forth in every thread stupidly calling IB a "chicken dick"... he has ruined countless threads that way... he has a dick obsession all right - he can't stop thinking and posting about IB's dick! Originally Posted by lustyladHe's rubbing off on WTF ... or is WTF rubbing off on him.
How many times did IvanLittleOne go back and forth in every thread stupidly calling IB a "chicken dick"... he has ruined countless threads that way... he has a dick obsession all right - he can't stop thinking and posting about IB's dick! Originally Posted by lustylad
He's rubbing off on WTF ... or is WTF rubbing off on him.
The seem to want to refocus the "gayness" they are experiencing onto others. Originally Posted by LexusLover
He was on a quail hunt, was Dick there also? Originally Posted by i'va biggenYou two cocksuckers can spin all you want, as you can see my original post had nothing to do with cocks. I will say you right wing fags stick together. Go get a room.
