Is Tom Adelson child molester sympathizer

[jamesrage]

You have used this same argument four times so far in this thread.

And so far anyone has yet to come up with anything.

I am not part of the Adelson campaign, but spent five minutes searching for such a vote.
Here is the first one that showed...

I could care less who the mayor is as long as he is not a downtownie.

SB702 voted on this year..."adding to the minimum sentence for kidnapping"

702 just added kidnapping to a list of crimes were 85% of the sentence must be served.It does not state the minimum number of years for kidnapping, do we have mandatory sentencing for kidnapping?
http://www.oksenate.gov/news/week_in_review/week_in_review_2009/wir2009051822.html

[rwarn17588]

There went whatever credibility you had left.

He had none well before this.

[cannon_fodder]

What is and isn't constitutional regarding the 8th amendment is subjective.

Because the Supreme Court decides constitutional issues.  Within the last two years they have specifically looked at this issue and declare the death penalty for a child rapist to be unconstitutional, as a violation of the 8th amendment.  Essentially, for anything other than murder or treason the death penalty is cruel and unusual.

Don't bother arguing with me, argue with the Court:
Article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/25/ST2008062501374.html

Decision:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-343.ZO.html

Supreme Court PDF:
www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-343.pdf

When the Supreme Court specifically rules on an issue, that's the law.  It can be challenged, but generally it is done gradually over time or when a significant change in ideology has occurred on the Court.  Neither has occurred.

I applaud Adelson for using his head in determining that it isn't worth spending tax payer funds and the AG's time defending a law that will surely be struck down.   No matter what political statement he may have wanted to make, or how much he would like to see child rapers suffer and die, it was a pointless endeavor at this time.  It certainly doesn't point out or in any way indicate that he sympathizes with child molesters. 

Which, on a related note, I do.  To the extent that it is entirely unfathomable to me to have sexual desire for or otherwise a yearning to harm a child.  I simply can't comprehend the issues someone must have that such a desire exists and have nothing but horror and sympathy for anyone who has such desires.  But that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see people that act on those desires suffer in the most extreme fashion justice deems proper.  Sympathy isn't a bad thing, so long as it doesn't preclude justice.

[jamesrage]

Because the Supreme Court decides constitutional issues.  Within the last two years they have specifically looked at this issue and declare the death penalty for a child rapist to be unconstitutional, as a violation of the 8th amendment.  Essentially, for anything other than murder or treason the death penalty is cruel and unusual.


When the Supreme Court specifically rules on an issue, that's the law.  It can be challenged, but generally it is done gradually over time or when a significant change in ideology has occurred on the Court.  Neither has occurred.

Irrelevant. The supreme court had yet to rule on the issue when the vote came up. So Adelson did not know what violated the 8th amendment. Because obviously those who do not sympathize with repeat child molesters had the opinion it was constitutional.

I applaud Adelson for using his head in determining that it isn't worth spending tax payer funds and the AG's time defending a law that will surely be struck down.   No matter what political statement he may have wanted to make, or how much he would like to see child rapers suffer and die, it was a pointless endeavor at this time.  It certainly doesn't point out or in any way indicate that he sympathizes with child molesters. 

Which, on a related note, I do.  To the extent that it is entirely unfathomable to me to have sexual desire for or otherwise a yearning to harm a child.  I simply can't comprehend the issues someone must have that such a desire exists and have nothing but horror and sympathy for anyone who has such desires.  But that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see people that act on those desires suffer in the most extreme fashion justice deems proper.  Sympathy isn't a bad thing, so long as it doesn't preclude justice.

Considering Adelson's stand on the state sovereignty he does he give a smile about the constitution.So it is a lie to say he cares what is and isn't constitutional. Its like with the ACLU saying they care about constitutional rights when most of the time they ignore 2nd amendment issues while trying to tear down a cross on war memorials or tear down ten commandment monuments.

[cannon_fodder]

You're blinded by your partisan rage and are advocating weak arguments.

It is NOT irrelevant.  Adleson said he didn't vote for the measure because it was unconstitutional.  Per rulings of circuit courts he was correct at the time, and that view was later affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States.  You are arguing that it is irrelevant that he was right:  the law would have been and would currently be unconstitutional. 

Furthermore, a desire for State's rights is a position within the construct of the Constitution.  It is an argument for a different construction, interpretation, and application of Constitutional governance.  It is not a dismissal of the constitution. 

The fact of the matter is Adleson is and has been working within the confines of the U.S. Constitution.  Under those confines the best available information indicated that such a law would have been struck down and thus a meritless expense.  And he was correct. 

So be pissed that he was correct if you want, but it's turning Jamesrage into impotent rage.

[jamesrage]

You're blinded by your partisan rage and are advocating weak arguments.

I could care less who becomes mayor because I am sure that just like the previous two mayors he,the republican and the independent will be another downtownie dude bag.

It is NOT irrelevant.  Adleson said he didn't vote for the measure because it was unconstitutional.

Per rulings of circuit courts he was correct at the time, and that view was later affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States.  You are arguing that it is irrelevant that he was right:  the law would have been and would currently be unconstitutional. 

Again at the time he did not know if it was or wasn't constitutional. So it is irrelevant argument to use.

Furthermore, a desire for State's rights is a position within the construct of the Constitution.  It is an argument for a different construction, interpretation, and application of Constitutional governance.  It is not a dismissal of the constitution. 

Again if he care what the constitution he would have voted along with the other elected officials who chose to support state sovereignty. So it punches a hole in your argument that Adelson cares what is and isn't constitutional.

The fact of the matter is Adleson is and has been working within the confines of the U.S. Constitution.

No he hasn't see above.

So be pissed that he was correct if you want, but it's turning Jamesrage into impotent rage.

So far I see no one posting anything to counter that Adelson is a scumbag sympathizer. The closest thing is a bill that adds kidnapping to a list of crimes where a certain percentage of their sentence must be served out. As far as I am concerned Adelson is another Judge Edward Cashman, a scumbag sympathizer who is soft on those who rape children.

[rwarn17588]

I could care less who becomes mayor because I am sure that just like the previous two mayors he,the republican and the independent will be another downtownie dude bag.  


Again at the time he did not know if it was or wasn't constitutional. So it is irrelevant argument to use.
Again if he care what the constitution he would have voted along with the other elected officials who chose to support state sovereignty. So it punches a hole in your argument that Adelson cares what is and isn't constitutional.
 

No he hasn't see above.
So far I see no one posting anything to counter that Adelson is a scumbag sympathizer. The closest thing is a bill that adds kidnapping to a list of crimes where a certain percentage of their sentence must be served out. As far as I am concerned Adelson is another Judge Edward Cashman, a scumbag sympathizer who is soft on those who rape children.

Apparently james is not overly blessed with cognitive abilities ... or common sense, for that matter.

And what the hell is a dude bag? 

[nathanm]

Considering Adelson's stand on the state sovereignty he does he give a smile about the constitution.So it is a lie to say he cares what is and isn't constitutional. Its like with the ACLU saying they care about constitutional rights when most of the time they ignore 2nd amendment issues while trying to tear down a cross on war memorials or tear down ten commandment monuments.

A vote on a sham "state sovereignty" bill says nothing about one's view of the Constitution, although it does say a lot about common sense.

As far as the ACLU goes, they don't say boo about the Second Amendment. That they choose not to expend their resources defending an amendment that has its own high profile and very well funded organization also speaks to their common sense, not their support of the Constitution or any specific amendment thereof.

[CoffeeBean]

So far I see no one posting anything to counter that Adelson is a scumbag sympathizer.

What evidence do you have that Adelson is a sympathizer?  What method did you rely upon to exclude all other explanations for his vote?  How did you rule out the possibility that Adelson voted against the bill because he believed that it was unconstitutional, as opposed to harboring sympathies for molesters?  Please explain your work.

Do you contend that every legislator is duty bound to vote for every law proposed by every other legislator unless there is a Supreme Court decision on point?  Are legislators obligated to wait on the Supreme Court before exercising their own judgment?  What if the Supreme Court is wrong?  Do you dream about japanese internment?  What about separate but equal?  The Supreme Court found both practices perfectly acceptable . . . at one point.  Should a legislator be punished for being ahead of the curve?  Would you prefer a legislator who advocates for laws that are more likely to violate our fundamental rights?  

Just wondering . . .      

   

[rwarn17588]

Again at the time he did not know if it was or wasn't constitutional. So it is irrelevant argument to use.

If a lower court rules that something is unconstitutional, it IS unconstitutional unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise. This is very basic, but it's obvious you're not understanding this.