This is just ACLU code for “the federal judges are more liberal than the (FILL IN THE CONSERVATIVE STATE OF YOUR CHOICE) judges, so the statutes will more likely be interpreted in a manner more protective of the capital criminal.”

I have read opinions by many state judges and many federal judges, and I don’t believe that state judges are so inferior in intellect to the federal bench that they should be second-guessed by the feds on these decisions. This is just the “federal court as a court of last resort”, as Ms. McCurdy admits, because of federal liberal bias.

Moreover, it is my understanding that the demands on public defenders is pretty steep. If we are going to complain about the cost that an ACLU lawsuit can impose on an innocent municipality, we can also acknowledge that criminal defense cases are also expensive, and that most defendants have even less resources than municipalities. This is a bona fide problem in the administration of justice. Everyone deserves a fair trial, ESPECIALLY guilty people.

That said, is there any reason to imagine that federal courts suffer from any fewer problems than state courts? I guess permitting state actions to be reviewed in federal court permits one more set of eyes to review them, which might catch some errors. And permitting every case to go to the court of appeals would catch even more! And permitting every case to go to the Supreme Ct. would catch even more! But at what cost? Added expense, added delay, loss of deterrence that would derive from the “swift administration of justice.” There’s gotta be some kind of cost/benefit analysis here.

Our justice system if flawed, as any human system is. State police, prosecutors and judges have their biases; they’re only human. But federal police, prosecutors and judges are only human, too. While the ACLU grumbles that “state courts often fail to interpret [death penalty statutes] correctly,” the dirty little secret is that “correctly” is in the eye of the beholder. We can say that state courts get to decide which procedures are correct, or that federal courts do, but in either case, the decision will be made by some mere mortal. Federal review is no sure guide to truth, and loss of federal review is no sure guide to error.

Bottom line: This bill just makes a policy choice, trading off the benefits of one more level of review against the cost of that review. The ACLU shouldn’t suggest that the bill would somehow cause our system of justice to become compromised. Our system of justice has always been a collection of compromises, and always will be.

Or, my favorite is just the ignorant knee jerk reaction of, “This is just a straight up lie!” They like to ask for evidence that what I’m saying is true, yet provide no evidence that what I am saying is not true. They will side with the ACLU still even if I provide them with strong proof. I even had an ignorant in here the other day that said he was going to renew his NAMBLA membership. What kind of sick twisted humor, (or truth) is that?

I know two people in the blogosphere that consider theirself liberals, who I haven’t lost faith in, and that is gun toting liberal (who I think is not that liberal), and Oklahoma democrat. So far, the rest have been moonbats with no hope. It gets discouraging sometimes. I partly started this blog in the hopes of winning over a few from the left, not to change their party affiliation or beliefs, but to open their eyes to the crazed agenda of the ACLU. I’m starting to lose hope on that front.

Great post, I’ll have to read the pdf file and see exactly what we are looking at here. I’m sure its just like all other legislation in the Senate…good stuff, and pork.