• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gov. Gavin Newsom vs. California Law

If Newsom feels that strongly about the death penalty why doesn't the sorry P.O.S. shut down the abortion clinics?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Proposition 62 failed to pass. How does that show that people of this state oppose the death penalty?

My bad. I misread the post. Of course it shows that the people don't support Newsome's decision.
Click to expand...

The death penalty is still on the books... it's just not going to be applied so long as Newsom is Governor. It's perfectly within his Constitutional power as Governor to make that call and grant reprieves.
 
Cordelier said:
If you're arguing that it's a badly-written EO, I agree with you... .
Click to expand...

No. That isn't what I'm arguing. The EO says exactly what it's supposed to.

Your problem is that you apparently literally cannot believe that it is what it is and you're purposely seeing a different reality to compensate, including misreading my argument. That's the charitable interpretation.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Proposition 62 failed to pass. How does that show that people of this state oppose the death penalty?

My bad. I misread the post. Of course it shows that the people don't support Newsome's decision.
Click to expand...

:peace
 
Harshaw said:
No. That isn't what I'm arguing. The EO says exactly what it's supposed to.

Your problem is that you apparently literally cannot believe that it is what it is and you're purposely seeing a different reality to compensate, including misreading my argument. That's the charitable interpretation.
Click to expand...

I'm a nuts and bolts kind of guy.... the EO says what the Governor wants done, but not how.... so how do we get there from here? Is it even possible? So I look at the problem from that perspective.... Article 5 §8 (a) reprieve power is what I came up with. Does it make the Governor's EO somehow less valid because he didn't state that himself? I don't think so. What's important is that he is exercising authority that is rightfully his.... and not usurping authority that isn't.

Do I wish the Governor reached out to the Attorney General for his input? Absolutely. He deserves to be wrapped on the knuckles for signing such a sloppy piece of work. It gives me cause for concern if this is going to be his style of governance going ahead. But I'm sure as hell not going to lose sleep over it.
 
Cordelier said:
I'm a nuts and bolts kind of guy.... the EO says what the Governor wants done, but not how.... so how do we get there from here? Is it even possible? So I look at the problem from that perspective.... Article 5 §8 (a) reprieve power is what I came up with. Does it make the Governor's EO somehow less valid because he didn't state that himself? I don't think so. What's important is that he is exercising authority that is rightfully his.... and not usurping authority that isn't.

Do I wish the Governor reached out to the Attorney General for his input? Absolutely. He deserves to be wrapped on the knuckles for signing such a sloppy piece of work. It gives me cause for concern if this is going to be his style of governance going ahead. But I'm sure as hell not going to lose sleep over it.
Click to expand...

OK. You're stuck in your own reality. Have at it.
 
Of course the easiest way to fix this problem is to put greater emphasis on processing cases where the convicted might be innocent, perhaps by expediting DNA testing, or via other means, thus narrowing it down to...oh say perhaps, maybe two or three, or even one, or even by some miracle...ZERO innocent people on Death Row.
Yes, that's hoping for a lot, I realize that. It's aspirational.
It's also maybe not as much fun as running around accusing someone of unconstitutional abuses of power...when they're not a Republican.

After all, doing something about the high number of innocent people on Death Row might inspire the Governor to drop the moratorium and reinstate practice of the death penalty once again. That would take away all the fun.

Thirty-three potentially innocent people on Death Row...this is the bigger problem.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Of course the easiest way to fix this problem is to put greater emphasis on processing cases where the convicted might be innocent, perhaps by expediting DNA testing, or via other means, thus narrowing it down to...oh say perhaps, maybe two or three, or even one, or even by some miracle...ZERO innocent people on Death Row.
Yes, that's hoping for a lot, I realize that. It's aspirational.
It's also maybe not as much fun as running around accusing someone of unconstitutional abuses of power...when they're not a Republican.

After all, doing something about the high number of innocent people on Death Row might inspire the Governor to drop the moratorium and reinstate practice of the death penalty once again. That would take away all the fun.

Thirty-three potentially innocent people on Death Row...this is the bigger problem.
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely... personally, what I'm interesting in seeing how the rubber meets the road as far as this EO goes. What happens when a death row inmate formally applies to the Governor for a reprieve, referencing his own order? Does it get approved automatically? If so, I suspect there will be a lot fewer people on California's death row pretty soon. If not, does the inmate have standing to challenge the EO as unconstitutional in state court? That should be an interesting case to watch.
 
Harshaw said:
And by the way, this is the governor's clemency power by the California constitution:



It is FAR from absolute, is limited by statute, and is to be done case-by-case, by application:

https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Application_for_Executive_Clemency.pdf

There is no blanket authority for the governor to do this.
Click to expand...

I think you may have missed the more important clause:
The Governor may not grant a pardon or commutation to a person twice convicted of a felony except on recommendation of the Supreme Court, 4 judges concurring.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many death row inmates only have a single felony conviction, and whether at least four CA Supreme Court judges have signed off on this order.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
I think you may have missed the more important clause:


I wonder how many death row inmates only have a single felony conviction, and whether at least four CA Supreme Court judges have signed off on this order.
Click to expand...

That's only for pardons and commutations.... reprieves from death row are a different matter entirely - the inmates would still be incarcerated, they just won't be subject to capital punishment.
 
Cordelier said:
That's only for pardons and commutations.... reprieves from death row are a different matter entirely - the inmates would still be incarcerated, they just won't be subject to capital punishment.
Click to expand...

But that's what a reprieve from the death sentence is: a commutation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom