Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Amber

Main / PSU Professor a murderer
Jul 28, 2003, 07:13 AM
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (July 26) - Last month, Penn State University officials
learned something about professor Paul Krueger that wasn't on his resume -
he is on parole for a triple murder committed in Texas nearly 40 years ago.

The university knew nothing about Krueger's conviction until late last
month, when the Pennsylvania Bureau of Probation and Parole contacted the
university, spokesman Bill Mahon said Friday.

"We're in shock to find out some of the details, and we're still looking
into it," Mahon said. "We've never had a situation like this before."

Mahon said the university doesn't require prospective faculty members to
report their criminal backgrounds.

But it may soon be a moot point. A spokesman for National University in
California confirmed that Krueger had accepted a teaching job there, and
Texas parole officials said they already were working on that move.

"We are, as a matter of fact, to meet with him at our headquarters here
today to do some of that paperwork," said Kathy Shallcross, deputy director
of Texas' parole division said Friday.

Hoyt Smith, spokesman for National University, the La Jolla-based college
where Krueger will be associate professor of business, said officials were
shocked to learn of the conviction from a reporter Friday, but that it
wouldn't necessarily affect his employment.

"He had excellent credentials. He came highly recommended from Penn State,"
Smith said.

Krueger, who has been at Penn State for four years, has no telephone listing
in the State College area. He did not immediately respond to an e-mail from
The Associated Press.

In 1965, when he was 18, Krueger and a 16-year-old friend, left San
Clemente, Calif. The two passed through Texas and rented a motor boat hoping
to travel to Venezuela, where they intended to become "soldiers of fortune,"
according to a 1979 story in the Austin American-Statesman.

Along the Intracoastal Waterway near Corpus Christi, they encountered a
fishing boat with a crew of three, John Fox, 38; Noel Little, 50; and Van
Carson, 40. As night fell on April 12, 1965, all five went to shore and put
in for the night.

For reasons Krueger never made public, he shot the three fishermen that
night, unloading 40 bullets into their bodies. Sam Jones, then the district
attorney for Nueces County, later referred to the shooting as "the most
heinous crime in the history of the Gulf Coast."

Krueger pleaded guilty in 1966 to three counts of murder and was sentenced
to three life terms, to be served concurrently.

Corrections officials described Krueger as a model inmate. He earned his
diploma and an associate's degree, volunteered with alcohol and drug
rehabilitation programs and reported for the prison newspaper.

Two parole commissioners, in 1977, called Krueger, "probably the most
exceptional inmate" in the entire state. "There is nothing further he can do
to rehabilitate himself," they said. Two years later, he was paroled to West
Covina, Calif., where he enrolled in graduate school.

Krueger's academic credentials are unquestioned - he graduated summa cum
laude from Sam Houston State University, going on to earn a master's degree
from California State University-Los Angeles, a Ph.D. in sociology from
South Dakota State University and an Ed.D. from the University of Southern

He was a visiting professor at Idaho State University and held a
tenure-track position at Augustana College in South Dakota before coming to
Penn State, where Krueger was director of the Institute for Research in
Training and Development, teaching mostly graduate courses and studying
employee training programs.

Some of his previous employers expressed surprise when learning of Krueger's

"I'm sitting here thunderstruck. I'm virtually speechless," said Anne
Oppegard, chairwoman of the business department at Augustana. "I'm
practically stuttering I'm so dumbfounded."

Main / Poll: Anti sodomy ruling
Jul 06, 2003, 01:33 PM
Main / Poll: Anti sodomy ruling
Jul 06, 2003, 05:18 AM
Main / Poll: Anti sodomy ruling
Jul 05, 2003, 09:46 PM
An email exchange between me and the guy,


I just got done reading the majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy.  In it, he does conclude that the State laws about homosexuality could be shot down.  He spends a significant amount of time attacking Bowers, that their reasoning was flawed.  In Bowers, they basically said that there is a rich history of Western laws which prohibited homosexual acts.  But Kennedy says that laws targetted solely at private, consenting acts among homosexuals did not happen until post 1950s.  Instead, the laws were targetted against all non-procreative acts, heterosexual or homosexual, and that only cases in which abuse or sex with a minor occured, were the sodomy laws used.  He ends by saying Bowers was overruled, which was the precedent before this case, and the reason why the Texas court upheld the conviction.  This is what Justice Kennedy concluded, emphasis mine

"The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. [/i]Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. "

I haven't got to Justice O'Connor's statement yet, but this was the majority opinion.  Sure, the swing vote matters, but shouldn't the majority opinion take precedence? How can you say that the Court didn't strike down sodomy laws?


Amber thanks for your thoughful post.
It is true that Justice Kennedy wrote the decision and O'Connor wrote a "concurring" opinon.
Concurring opinions are typically written when two or more Justices reach the same conclusion for different reasons and/or two Justices disagree about the broadness of the precedent ths case should set.  In this case, Kennedy went so far as to claim the court overturned an earlier case, Bowers v. Hardwick ( ),  O'Connors' opinoon claims that the current ruling does not overturn Bowers.

The first words of Kennedy's instructions (the writ of certori to the court of appeals) are:
Held: The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. Pp. 3-18.  (emphasis obviously mine).  Thus even Kennedy's certori makes it clear that this ruling does not declare all sodomy laws unconstituional, but insead applies only to those which deal differently with same-sex and opposite-sex sodomy.

As for the opinon section, right from the outset Kennedy frames the case this way:
"The question before the Court is the validity of a Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct."  (emphasis obviously mine again).  For a secoind time Justice Kennedy makes it claer that this case pertains only to a law which treats people differently based on the gender or the gender of their lover.

Still, it is easy to infer from the rest of Kennedy's opinion that he would willing declare all private acts "protected."

Justice O'Connor, the deciding vote apparently took issue with something in Kennedy's opinion and chose to concur with the result but write here own.

The second sentence of  O'Connor's opninion reads as follows:
" . . . I agree with the Court that Texas' statute banning same-sex sodomy is unconstitutional."

I could go on, but the point is both majority opinons are replete with references to the fact that the Texas sodomy law treated same-sex and oppsite sex partners differently.


So what are States going to do, with Kennedy and O'Connor contradicting themselves over if this case overturns Bowers or not?  What will lower courts have to go by?  They are going to have to go with the majority opinion.  The fact is -- Lawrence over-ruled Bowers.  

Sure, Kennedy makes reference to the fact that the Texas law applied only to homosexuals, while the Georgia anti sodomy law (in Bowers), held for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.  But that's all it was - a fact.  Kennedy did not say that he opposed the law just because it referred only to same sex sodomy.  He only mentioned that that was what the court was reviewing - and it was. Only O'Connor used the discrimination argument, out of all the justices.  

>As for the opinon section, right from the outset Kennedy frames the case >this way: >"The question before the Court is the validity of a Texas statute making >it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate >sexual conduct." (emphasis obviously mine again). For a secoind time >Justice Kennedy makes it claer that this case pertains only to a law >which treats people differently based on the gender or the gender of >their lover.

Again, he is referring to the facts of the case - what it was they were evaluating.  He makes no judgment calls here.  That *is* what they were looking at --  Should gay sex be illegal?  That was the Texas law, and that is what they were looking at.  I'm not seeing a "homosexual vs. heterosexual discrimination" argument here.  

Kennedy, by the way, was appointed by Ronald Reagen.  Four out of the six judges who approved of Lawrence were appointed by Republicans.  Three of them used privacy reasons, only one - O'Connor (first female appoint by Reagen), used the discrimination argument.

I'm actually glad it was more of a privacy argument than a discrimination argument.  If it's a private argument, then it sticks SOLELY to whether or not people can engage in sexual acts.  Who cares?  You'd have to be of a totalitarian mentality (like Covenor) to put people in jail for having anal sex.  As Kennedy pointed out, sodomy laws had not, traditionally, been used to put private consenting adults behding bars.  It was only used in cases of abuse or pedophilia.  (I never really thought they had anything to bitch about, until this random case of cops entering a man's house and finding 2 men engaged in sodomy).

What I'm worried about is gay marriage.  Sure, 6 out of 10 Americans don't support sodomy laws (according to Newsweek), but 6 out of 10 Americans don't support gay marriage (if the California case is of any barometer).  A true tribute to the common sense of Americans.  Anyway, if there was a discrimination argument ... then this would pave the way for gay marriage[/i].  If you can't "discriminate" between hetersosexual and homosexual acts in the eyes of the law, then you can't discriminate between them when they go to obtain a marriage license.  

This (gay marriage) is next on their radar screen, and I hope the moral leadership of this country steps up to stop it.  God, I do NOT want us to turn into Europe!


This will teach me to take other people's word for it.  :roll:
Main / Poll: Anti sodomy ruling
Jul 05, 2003, 05:47 PM
Main / Poll: Anti sodomy ruling
Jul 05, 2003, 11:44 AM
Main / Poll: Anti sodomy ruling
Jul 05, 2003, 08:55 AM
Why go after Walmart?  Why not go after the manufacturing companies making the product in the 3rd world countries?  

Walmart is just a retail store.  It just provides a central location for people all over to come and get multiple products.  I don't see why Walmart gets all the wrath.  

Is it because Sam Walton, when alive, was the wealthiest man alive?  Do you go after Bill Gates because he was the wealtheist man alive?  Is that what it is?  Cutting down the tallest poppy possible?
Main / Pavlov's Feminists
Jun 28, 2003, 10:49 PM
Main / Pavlov's Feminists
Jun 14, 2003, 02:01 PM
Main / Pavlov's Feminists
Jun 13, 2003, 03:50 PM
By the way, Dan, don't let W. McElroy see this.  She might rip your idea off and pass it off as her own in a column again.  :roll:
Main / Pavlov's Feminists
Jun 13, 2003, 03:23 PM
Main / Pavlov's Feminists
Jun 12, 2003, 09:13 PM