Five reasons to oppose death penalty

Wow Equality, you have a radical heart beating under a liberal flesh  (Just joking, I disagree but respect your opinion about death penalty).

1. I always thought the Miranda Right is an abuse, any reasonable person MUST KNOW at least his/her basic rights unless he's a very young minor or a retarded person. I knew about cases of foreign persons that lived in USA for years (If not decades) were legal, had green card or even citizenship and claimed their Miranda Rights were not respected because they weren't able to understand the rights that were declared by the police officer.......This is absurd, one of my nephews has 6 or 7 years (Son of a cousin) hardrly speaks English yet, but he knows the rights because he heard them on TV.
2. Roper vs Simmons: Great to know that you as me agree with the posture of the discenting Justices and Chieff Justice (Not about the death openalty I know), but if those guys were capable of killing in such a terrible way, they should be judged as adults, specially because Simmons had no damage or mental incapacity.

Now in the case of Johnson vs Texas, this one is interesting:

1. We agree that the first Judge had to sanction Johnson because the Texas Statute clearly stated that desecrating the USA flag was a crime.
2. We agree that despite their agendas, the Supreme Court is capable of making an interpretation of the law and local statutes, so they were in the right to understand flag burning as a civil right protected by the First Ammendment even when I believe it's an offense.
3. NOW, THERE IS A MISTAKE.....Johnson was declared guilty of desecrating a symbol and even when the Court could ´reverse that sentence, Johnson should had been sent to trial again because another Texas statute prohibited breaches of the peace and could be used to prevent disturbances without punishing this flag desecration, but the Supreme Court decided that burning a flag (5 votes against 4 and again Rehnquist was in discent) wouldn't be enough to create a breach of the peace.
4. THIS IS AN ABUSE OF THE COURT.....The jury and not any court should decide what is a breach of the peace in their community, the Supreme Court went too far.}

It's good to read the vote of Justice Rehnquist (Not Chieff Justice yet I believe);

The American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. It does not represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another "idea" or "point of view" competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have. I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 States, which make criminal the public burning of the flag.

goose wrote: Five reasons to oppose Dream Theater solos? Slightly more on topic, what right does a judge have to refuse to preside over a case? Can he do this without leaving his post?

1. The Judge is related with the plaintiff, defendant, lawyer or prossecutor.
2. The Judge has personal interest in the case.
3. The judge is an enemy or frend of a relative up to fourth degree (Blood) or second (By law) of enemy of one of the persons involved.
4. The Judge has expressed opinion about the case before being named for the trial.
5. The Judge has business with one of the parts.

And similar.