Thursday, November 18, 2004
COURT RULES TEXAS CAN'T "EXECUTE 'TARDS"
By Stockton
In a 7-2 ruling, the United States Supreme Court stopped the execution of a Texas man because the jury did not consider the man's low intelligence when voting for the death penalty. The court ruled that such factors as IQ and participation in 'Special Education' classes should be considered before passing on the ultimate punishment. In dicta, the Court stated:
The Texas State Prosecutor, Roy 'Cooter' Conklin was angry at the High Court's activist intervention.
Conklin's argument, that the jury's average IQ was lower than the defendant's, was ignored by the court. "It just don't make no sense," said one juror. "Who's gonna sit on a jury if we can't fry a tard?"
The Jury: "Disappointed no tards will fry."
The decision has prompted one Texas Congressman to introduce legislation that would strip the United States Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction over matters involving the U.S. Constitution.
|
By Stockton
In a 7-2 ruling, the United States Supreme Court stopped the execution of a Texas man because the jury did not consider the man's low intelligence when voting for the death penalty. The court ruled that such factors as IQ and participation in 'Special Education' classes should be considered before passing on the ultimate punishment. In dicta, the Court stated:
"In a civilized, humane society, the execution of retards should only be done following high voter turnout in Red States during Presidential Elections."
The Texas State Prosecutor, Roy 'Cooter' Conklin was angry at the High Court's activist intervention.
"The Jew S. Supreme Court has made a radical decision that will all but castrate our God-given right to kill. If low intelligence will negate the application of the death penalty, then we won't be able to execute anyone in Texas."
Conklin's argument, that the jury's average IQ was lower than the defendant's, was ignored by the court. "It just don't make no sense," said one juror. "Who's gonna sit on a jury if we can't fry a tard?"
The Jury: "Disappointed no tards will fry."
The decision has prompted one Texas Congressman to introduce legislation that would strip the United States Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction over matters involving the U.S. Constitution.
