http://www.reuters.com/article/poli...Type=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true
I always was luke warm on Scalia because I saw him as a little too eager to grant gov't power. So the COTUS only protects you against cruel and unusual punishement AFTER you have been convicted of a crime and it doesn't apply to say, the police beating a confession out of you. :barf:
Sorry but Scalia's logic is flawed, and because it is flawed in favor of "the right" I fear many who are pro-2A will misinterpret this to believe he is therefore in allegiance with us. Scalia has a well known respect for precedent and a willingness to grant the gov't authority wherever it can be interpreted to have such. If he sees the gov't loosing too much power in a pro-2A ruling I do not know if he will go for it.
Scalia said that it was "extraordinary" to assume that the U.S. Constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" also applied to "so-called" torture.
"To begin with the Constitution ... is referring to punishment for crime. And, for example, incarcerating someone indefinitely would certainly be cruel and unusual punishment for a crime," he said in an interview with the Law in Action program on BBC Radio 4.
Scalia said stronger measures could be taken when a witness refused to answer questions.
I always was luke warm on Scalia because I saw him as a little too eager to grant gov't power. So the COTUS only protects you against cruel and unusual punishement AFTER you have been convicted of a crime and it doesn't apply to say, the police beating a confession out of you. :barf:
Sorry but Scalia's logic is flawed, and because it is flawed in favor of "the right" I fear many who are pro-2A will misinterpret this to believe he is therefore in allegiance with us. Scalia has a well known respect for precedent and a willingness to grant the gov't authority wherever it can be interpreted to have such. If he sees the gov't loosing too much power in a pro-2A ruling I do not know if he will go for it.