|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 03 2019 06:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2019 06:38 xDaunt wrote:On April 03 2019 06:17 JimmiC wrote:I thought this was huge news that in a 5-4 vote a man was rejected for having his Inman in the death chamber with him. A christian spiritual adviser being allowed but a Muslim one not being allowed is a huge statement to make. That the US is not about protecting religious freedom any more. It is about protecting christian freedom. Scary times, and I think some of the justices realize this and this is why they are commenting about it in other cases. I hope they see what direction this is taking the country and smartin up. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/politics/supreme-court-feuding-death-penalty-bucklew-alabama/index.html Perhaps you should read the opinion (or the CNN article) to at least understand why an imam was not allowed? Here's a hint: it had nothing to do with religion. You can’t argue that only staff members can provide religious counseling while only hiring a Christian pastor as a staff member. That’s still discrimination. You offer religious counsel or you don’t. You can’t hire a pastor, offer Christian counseling to Christians, and then insist that your “staff counseling only” rule is non discriminatory.
There's nothing per se wrong with only have a Christian pastor on staff. It is entirely unreasonable to have a pastor of every conceivable faith on staff. This guy was sitting on death row for god knows how many years. It's not like he didn't see this coming or know that he should put in a request for an Imam to be present. He almost certainly purposefully waited until the last moment in a last ditch effort to delay his execution. That's on him.
|
On April 03 2019 06:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2019 06:17 JimmiC wrote:I thought this was huge news that in a 5-4 vote a man was rejected for having his Inman in the death chamber with him. A christian spiritual adviser being allowed but a Muslim one not being allowed is a huge statement to make. That the US is not about protecting religious freedom any more. It is about protecting christian freedom. Scary times, and I think some of the justices realize this and this is why they are commenting about it in other cases. I hope they see what direction this is taking the country and smartin up. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/politics/supreme-court-feuding-death-penalty-bucklew-alabama/index.html Perhaps you should read the opinion (or the CNN article) to at least understand why an imam was not allowed? Here's a hint: it had nothing to do with religion.
The core argument, from my novice understanding, behind the Ray ruling was that he had ample notice and filed the appeal with the Supreme court at the last minute. Even if I agree with all of points raised by Gorsuch that the appeal was not timely and could be seen as a stall tactic, is that sufficient to allow the state to deny a citizen their religious adviser at their execution? This is the moment when the court gets serious about the timely filing of appeals? The court is telling people facing their execution to plan ahead and make sure they are aware of filing deadlines?
I'm trying to get into the mind frame where that ruling was at all reasonable, even from a legal standpoint and I can't get there. US prisons are not know for treating people on death row well. The fact that the court would let the state deny someone on death row their religious adviser of choice is repugnant. And this is on top of the recent ruling where the court ruled we are not entitled to a painless execution, even if a painless execution is possible.
I agree with Sotomayor comment. “There are higher values than ensuring executions run on time." The high court debases itself with these recent rulings.
On April 03 2019 06:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2019 06:47 KwarK wrote:On April 03 2019 06:38 xDaunt wrote:On April 03 2019 06:17 JimmiC wrote:I thought this was huge news that in a 5-4 vote a man was rejected for having his Inman in the death chamber with him. A christian spiritual adviser being allowed but a Muslim one not being allowed is a huge statement to make. That the US is not about protecting religious freedom any more. It is about protecting christian freedom. Scary times, and I think some of the justices realize this and this is why they are commenting about it in other cases. I hope they see what direction this is taking the country and smartin up. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/politics/supreme-court-feuding-death-penalty-bucklew-alabama/index.html Perhaps you should read the opinion (or the CNN article) to at least understand why an imam was not allowed? Here's a hint: it had nothing to do with religion. You can’t argue that only staff members can provide religious counseling while only hiring a Christian pastor as a staff member. That’s still discrimination. You offer religious counsel or you don’t. You can’t hire a pastor, offer Christian counseling to Christians, and then insist that your “staff counseling only” rule is non discriminatory. There's nothing per se wrong with only have a Christian pastor on staff. It is entirely unreasonable to have a pastor of every conceivable faith on staff. This guy was sitting on death row for god knows how many years. It's not like he didn't see this coming or know that he should put in a request for an Imam to be present. He almost certainly purposefully waited until the last moment in a last ditch effort to delay his execution. That's on him.
Excuse the poor turn of phrase given the subject, but this is the hill the conservative court is going to die on? That people sentenced to death need to comply with state deadlines when requesting religious advisers. Shouldn't the standard be "We are killing the person, so they can have anyone they want so long as it doesn't delay anything"? It isn't like there is going to be a shortage of inmans willing to see the guy across the threshold.
And I am not sure, was that deadline set by statute or by the prison holding him?
|
United States42255 Posts
On April 03 2019 06:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2019 06:47 KwarK wrote:On April 03 2019 06:38 xDaunt wrote:On April 03 2019 06:17 JimmiC wrote:I thought this was huge news that in a 5-4 vote a man was rejected for having his Inman in the death chamber with him. A christian spiritual adviser being allowed but a Muslim one not being allowed is a huge statement to make. That the US is not about protecting religious freedom any more. It is about protecting christian freedom. Scary times, and I think some of the justices realize this and this is why they are commenting about it in other cases. I hope they see what direction this is taking the country and smartin up. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/politics/supreme-court-feuding-death-penalty-bucklew-alabama/index.html Perhaps you should read the opinion (or the CNN article) to at least understand why an imam was not allowed? Here's a hint: it had nothing to do with religion. You can’t argue that only staff members can provide religious counseling while only hiring a Christian pastor as a staff member. That’s still discrimination. You offer religious counsel or you don’t. You can’t hire a pastor, offer Christian counseling to Christians, and then insist that your “staff counseling only” rule is non discriminatory. There's nothing per se wrong with only have a Christian pastor on staff. It is entirely unreasonable to have a pastor of every conceivable faith on staff. This guy was sitting on death row for god knows how many years. It's not like he didn't see this coming or know that he should put in a request for an Imam to be present. He almost certainly purposefully waited until the last moment in a last ditch effort to delay his execution. That's on him.
You’re right that it’s not feasible to have a staff member of every single religion on staff. Fortunately I didn’t propose that. However it is discriminatory to only offer religious counseling by staff members and then only hire Christians to offer it. An easy fix would be to allow the condemned to have their own counselor brought in. I have faith that our prisons are sufficiently secure to be safe from a single old Imam brought in for an hour or two. If they really can’t allow Imams in due to security concerns that’s a pretty major admittance of their own incompetence.
The policy is discriminatory. Timeliness is a separate issue entirely. There can be two problems, his objection can have been late without the policy of forcing everyone to use the Christian pastor being absolved. The Supreme Court are surely capable of that degree of nuance.
|
|
|
It isn't guilt so much as they have to deal with the 4 other justices on the court who are all very mad about those rulings. It has been uncommon in the past for the court issue a ruling this contested, let alone several in a row. It isn't normal for them to be this angry or cutting in their decent. The addition of two hand picked Heritage Foundation golden boys who parrot Scalia without any of his brilliance has upset the balance of power. People forget that Gorsuch was out there campaigning for conservative candidates after being sworn in. That ended quickly, but it gives you an idea of how much they value keeping politics away from the high court.
|
On April 03 2019 05:40 xDaunt wrote:One thing that I'll say about China is that there's no mistaking what their major initiatives and priorities are because you can see them get built/implemented seemingly overnight. Having just come back from China, one thing that I'll note is that whatever renewable energy initiatives China is undergoing don't currently show up anywhere. And I wasn't in backwater China, either. I was in two of the top four cities: Beijing and Tianjin. While there and while traveling between the cities, I didn't see any wind turbines or solar panels. And frankly, I don't expect to see a lot of that type of power built up in China soon because space is so scarce. Everything in China is built vertically. Small towns and suburbs don't have single family housing. They don't even really have small scale condo development. They have the same 20-30 story apartment buildings that you'll find in the major cities. It's kinda weird traveling through the countryside and just seeing these things pop up all over the place in the middle of farmland and other open space. I can see China doing a lot of solar and wind power out west and north in the desert regions, but that's not where most of the power supply is needed. And this limited investment in domestically deployed renewable energy is consistent with reports of China's doubling down on coal power.
The US population is maybe 1/3 of what their population is, which is and insane amount of people. Likely their efforts must go to both sources strictly out of necessity.
The amount of people they are supporting is insane, the energy drain is going to be that much greater.
Regardless, the world economy is moving toward renewable energy, nobody is clamoring to get fossil fuel, it's old tech with a lot of draw backs. Countries have to transition, so they will likely still build some, but nobody it scream "coal is the shit."
The possibilities for growth in renewable energy is vast, in fossil fuel it's just shrinking.
While China is "quietly investing" some in coal, the article itself says that China has cut their coal reliance, moving toward renewable production, and also speaks to the world economy transitioning aways from fossil fuel.
|
On April 03 2019 05:25 Sermokala wrote:
Btw real classy questioning what reality I want to believe in and then a few posts later saying how its common knowledge how corupt and questionable china's investment numbers are.
I said nothing of the sort, none of my statements question corrupt numbers coming out of China. The only statements I've made are that China is outspending the US by a large margin in solar investment.
You're reading into my statements and adding extra content to them.
|
Regarding the Ray case, there isn't a lot of record to work with given its disposition. But even presuming that there's discriminatory impact, I don't see this as being a big deal, and certainly not one where the State's interests aren't compelling enough to justify the discrimination. The relevant facts are as follows:
1) Alabama law allows the prison chaplain and the prisoner's spiritual adviser of choice to be present at the execution. The law does not say whether this presence is met by being in the viewing room or by being in the actual execution chamber.
2) There is no record of the prison's policies and procedures for who gets to be in the execution chamber other than that it seems to be stipulated that only prison employees get to be in there. Even the dissent acknowledges that the State has a compelling security interest in limiting access to the execution chamber.
So the issue here is whether it is an unconstitutional practice to ban any outside spiritual adviser (not just Muslim) from the execution Chamber (but again, they can be in the viewing room) when a particular type of Christian sect incidentally gets the benefit of having the prison chaplain in there during the execution -- and more specifically, whether the State is obliged to more narrowly tailor its infringement upon the prisoner's First Amendment rights to allow for non-employee spiritual advisers to be present in the execution chamber. Putting the timing issues aside, this registers as a near zero on the "why should we care?" scale.
|
On April 03 2019 06:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2019 06:47 KwarK wrote:On April 03 2019 06:38 xDaunt wrote:On April 03 2019 06:17 JimmiC wrote:I thought this was huge news that in a 5-4 vote a man was rejected for having his Inman in the death chamber with him. A christian spiritual adviser being allowed but a Muslim one not being allowed is a huge statement to make. That the US is not about protecting religious freedom any more. It is about protecting christian freedom. Scary times, and I think some of the justices realize this and this is why they are commenting about it in other cases. I hope they see what direction this is taking the country and smartin up. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/politics/supreme-court-feuding-death-penalty-bucklew-alabama/index.html Perhaps you should read the opinion (or the CNN article) to at least understand why an imam was not allowed? Here's a hint: it had nothing to do with religion. You can’t argue that only staff members can provide religious counseling while only hiring a Christian pastor as a staff member. That’s still discrimination. You offer religious counsel or you don’t. You can’t hire a pastor, offer Christian counseling to Christians, and then insist that your “staff counseling only” rule is non discriminatory. There's nothing per se wrong with only have a Christian pastor on staff. It is entirely unreasonable to have a pastor of every conceivable faith on staff. This guy was sitting on death row for god knows how many years. It's not like he didn't see this coming or know that he should put in a request for an Imam to be present. He almost certainly purposefully waited until the last moment in a last ditch effort to delay his execution. That's on him.
That's the thing about this case. He was sentenced to death in 1999 for a crime in 1995. He was convicted of the rape and murder of a teenage girl.
The date of execution was set for February 7th, 2019 in November of last year. He waited until January 28th, 2019 to seek the spiritual advisor to be present.
The original poster's verbage of "a huge statement to make" and "the US is not about protecting religious freedom" and "scary times" is in keeping with the partisan nature of his normal political arguments. He makes no reference to the very late nature of the request, nor even discusses any possible point of contention other than religion. If you want a pastafarian minister at your execution for a crime committed two decades ago, don't wait until the final two weeks. The Supreme Court has granted other cases where the condemned requested a minister before the final run-up and was stupidly denied.
|
On April 03 2019 08:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2019 06:54 xDaunt wrote:On April 03 2019 06:47 KwarK wrote:On April 03 2019 06:38 xDaunt wrote:On April 03 2019 06:17 JimmiC wrote:I thought this was huge news that in a 5-4 vote a man was rejected for having his Inman in the death chamber with him. A christian spiritual adviser being allowed but a Muslim one not being allowed is a huge statement to make. That the US is not about protecting religious freedom any more. It is about protecting christian freedom. Scary times, and I think some of the justices realize this and this is why they are commenting about it in other cases. I hope they see what direction this is taking the country and smartin up. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/politics/supreme-court-feuding-death-penalty-bucklew-alabama/index.html Perhaps you should read the opinion (or the CNN article) to at least understand why an imam was not allowed? Here's a hint: it had nothing to do with religion. You can’t argue that only staff members can provide religious counseling while only hiring a Christian pastor as a staff member. That’s still discrimination. You offer religious counsel or you don’t. You can’t hire a pastor, offer Christian counseling to Christians, and then insist that your “staff counseling only” rule is non discriminatory. There's nothing per se wrong with only have a Christian pastor on staff. It is entirely unreasonable to have a pastor of every conceivable faith on staff. This guy was sitting on death row for god knows how many years. It's not like he didn't see this coming or know that he should put in a request for an Imam to be present. He almost certainly purposefully waited until the last moment in a last ditch effort to delay his execution. That's on him. That's the thing about this case. He was sentenced to death in 1999 for a crime in 1995. He was convicted of the rape and murder of a teenage girl. The date of execution was set for February 7th, 2019 in November of last year. He waited until January 28th, 2019 to seek the spiritual advisor to be present. The original poster's verbage of "a huge statement to make" and "the US is not about protecting religious freedom" and "scary times" is in keeping with the partisan nature of his normal political arguments. He makes no reference to the very late nature of the request, nor even discusses any possible point of contention other than religion. If you want a pastafarian minister at your execution for a crime committed two decades ago, don't wait until the final two weeks. The Supreme Court has granted other cases where the condemned requested a minister before the final run-up and was stupidly denied.
death/mortality is a scary thing and I can see someone seeking faith at the last minute despite not really caring for the years prior.
|
|
|
I don't see how timing is relevant in any way when the case itself has merit.
Christians are given access to a spiritual adviser, other religions are not.
Discrimination, the end.
|
On April 03 2019 08:19 Gorsameth wrote:
I don't see how timing is relevant in any way when the case itself has merit.
Christians are given access to a spiritual adviser, other religions are not.
Discrimination, the end.
I mean, xDaunt's argumentation makes it clear enough: as long as they can sufficiently obfuscate their reasoning under layers of "how the law works", they can lean back happy that their boys are being favored in the end. Somehow, it's us who are making this a political thing. "Those dern uppity non-Christians."
|
On April 03 2019 08:26 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2019 08:19 Gorsameth wrote:
I don't see how timing is relevant in any way when the case itself has merit.
Christians are given access to a spiritual adviser, other religions are not.
Discrimination, the end. I mean, xDaunt's argumentation makes it clear enough: as long as they can sufficiently obfuscate their reasoning under layers of "how the law works", they can lean back happy that their boys are being favored in the end. Somehow, it's us who are making this a political thing.
Don't make me laugh. As is all too typical, not one of you managed to properly lay out the facts and issues until I did it. And most of you still aren't demonstrating a particularly good grasp of what the discrimination even might be, to the extent that it exists.
|
On April 03 2019 08:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2019 08:26 NewSunshine wrote:On April 03 2019 08:19 Gorsameth wrote:
I don't see how timing is relevant in any way when the case itself has merit.
Christians are given access to a spiritual adviser, other religions are not.
Discrimination, the end. I mean, xDaunt's argumentation makes it clear enough: as long as they can sufficiently obfuscate their reasoning under layers of "how the law works", they can lean back happy that their boys are being favored in the end. Somehow, it's us who are making this a political thing. Don't make me laugh. As is all too typical, not one of you managed to properly lay out the facts and issues until I did it. And most of you still aren't demonstrating a particularly good grasp of what the discrimination even might be, to the extent that it exists.
"It's okay to have a Christian pastor on staff as the default, and if someone of another faith seeks guidance in the end and I arbitrarily deem it to be too late to find somebody, eh, fuck 'em."
Mind you, I am paraphrasing, slightly.
|
On April 03 2019 08:26 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2019 08:19 Gorsameth wrote:
I don't see how timing is relevant in any way when the case itself has merit.
Christians are given access to a spiritual adviser, other religions are not.
Discrimination, the end. I mean, xDaunt's argumentation makes it clear enough: as long as they can sufficiently obfuscate their reasoning under layers of "how the law works", they can lean back happy that their boys are being favored in the end. Somehow, it's us who are making this a political thing. "Those dern uppity non-Christians."
Indeed. Discrimination is only a problem when the target are white christian men. For everyone else, as long as there is some small veneer of hiding the discrimination behind rules and red tape, everything is fine.
The result of this is that only christians have the right to have for a spiritual advisor in the execution chamber. Others do not. Sure, you can hide it behind "They can only have a staff spiritual advisor" (And we only hire christian priests). But that does not change that the result is discrimination, you just put a small bit of paint on top of it to hide that that is what you are doing.
It does not even need to necessarily be malicious from the start. I can totally believe that a bunch of people involved did not actually set it up this way to discriminate against other religions (Though they probably also didn't stop to think about other religions existing). But the result is still clear. Christians have a right that other religions don't. And that is the problem.
|
On April 03 2019 08:15 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2019 08:10 Danglars wrote:On April 03 2019 06:54 xDaunt wrote:On April 03 2019 06:47 KwarK wrote:On April 03 2019 06:38 xDaunt wrote:On April 03 2019 06:17 JimmiC wrote:I thought this was huge news that in a 5-4 vote a man was rejected for having his Inman in the death chamber with him. A christian spiritual adviser being allowed but a Muslim one not being allowed is a huge statement to make. That the US is not about protecting religious freedom any more. It is about protecting christian freedom. Scary times, and I think some of the justices realize this and this is why they are commenting about it in other cases. I hope they see what direction this is taking the country and smartin up. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/politics/supreme-court-feuding-death-penalty-bucklew-alabama/index.html Perhaps you should read the opinion (or the CNN article) to at least understand why an imam was not allowed? Here's a hint: it had nothing to do with religion. You can’t argue that only staff members can provide religious counseling while only hiring a Christian pastor as a staff member. That’s still discrimination. You offer religious counsel or you don’t. You can’t hire a pastor, offer Christian counseling to Christians, and then insist that your “staff counseling only” rule is non discriminatory. There's nothing per se wrong with only have a Christian pastor on staff. It is entirely unreasonable to have a pastor of every conceivable faith on staff. This guy was sitting on death row for god knows how many years. It's not like he didn't see this coming or know that he should put in a request for an Imam to be present. He almost certainly purposefully waited until the last moment in a last ditch effort to delay his execution. That's on him. That's the thing about this case. He was sentenced to death in 1999 for a crime in 1995. He was convicted of the rape and murder of a teenage girl. The date of execution was set for February 7th, 2019 in November of last year. He waited until January 28th, 2019 to seek the spiritual advisor to be present. The original poster's verbage of "a huge statement to make" and "the US is not about protecting religious freedom" and "scary times" is in keeping with the partisan nature of his normal political arguments. He makes no reference to the very late nature of the request, nor even discusses any possible point of contention other than religion. If you want a pastafarian minister at your execution for a crime committed two decades ago, don't wait until the final two weeks. The Supreme Court has granted other cases where the condemned requested a minister before the final run-up and was stupidly denied. death/mortality is a scary thing and I can see someone seeking faith at the last minute despite not really caring for the years prior.
On April 03 2019 08:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2019 08:10 Danglars wrote:On April 03 2019 06:54 xDaunt wrote:On April 03 2019 06:47 KwarK wrote:On April 03 2019 06:38 xDaunt wrote:On April 03 2019 06:17 JimmiC wrote:I thought this was huge news that in a 5-4 vote a man was rejected for having his Inman in the death chamber with him. A christian spiritual adviser being allowed but a Muslim one not being allowed is a huge statement to make. That the US is not about protecting religious freedom any more. It is about protecting christian freedom. Scary times, and I think some of the justices realize this and this is why they are commenting about it in other cases. I hope they see what direction this is taking the country and smartin up. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/politics/supreme-court-feuding-death-penalty-bucklew-alabama/index.html Perhaps you should read the opinion (or the CNN article) to at least understand why an imam was not allowed? Here's a hint: it had nothing to do with religion. You can’t argue that only staff members can provide religious counseling while only hiring a Christian pastor as a staff member. That’s still discrimination. You offer religious counsel or you don’t. You can’t hire a pastor, offer Christian counseling to Christians, and then insist that your “staff counseling only” rule is non discriminatory. There's nothing per se wrong with only have a Christian pastor on staff. It is entirely unreasonable to have a pastor of every conceivable faith on staff. This guy was sitting on death row for god knows how many years. It's not like he didn't see this coming or know that he should put in a request for an Imam to be present. He almost certainly purposefully waited until the last moment in a last ditch effort to delay his execution. That's on him. That's the thing about this case. He was sentenced to death in 1999 for a crime in 1995. He was convicted of the rape and murder of a teenage girl. The date of execution was set for February 7th, 2019 in November of last year. He waited until January 28th, 2019 to seek the spiritual advisor to be present. The original poster's verbage of "a huge statement to make" and "the US is not about protecting religious freedom" and "scary times" is in keeping with the partisan nature of his normal political arguments. He makes no reference to the very late nature of the request, nor even discusses any possible point of contention other than religion. If you want a pastafarian minister at your execution for a crime committed two decades ago, don't wait until the final two weeks. The Supreme Court has granted other cases where the condemned requested a minister before the final run-up and was stupidly denied. How could they not make it secure to have him in there with 15 days notice? This isn't 15 minutes. Come on now enough with the disingenuous bs. Its really hard to pat someone down, metal detector, extra guards. Whatever you need to feel safe. I mean if your goal is to keep the death penalty, which I assume yours would be, why not do it right?
The Supreme Court case hinged on the late notice, and other stays were granted when the state clearly had plenty of time to make arrangements. Don't wait until very close to your execution to ask for an imam. I know well enough how long it takes for regular requests to process, and so did he.
Certainly don't be stupid enough to make this about Muslim vs Christian. I hear all the time here that there's this tremendous cost keeping people on death row for decades waiting for appeals (etc), and I don't want this sudden flip towards allowing all kinds of delay proceedings at the very last moment. You're the disingenuous one trying to call disingenuous bs on others.
(And please, next time read the Supreme Court decision and dissent first and COMMENT on the primary reason why it was refused. This is literally the same thing that people do when Trump alleges ill treatment and believes him entirely unquestioningly.)
|
Again, focusing the ruling on the notice being filed so close to the execution is a terrible look. The state has all the power here and cannot give the man his spiritual advisor because he didn’t apply on time. The man wasn’t even asking to have his execution delayed. No matter how sound the legal arguments were, the conservative justices look like assholes of the highest caliber.
|
On April 03 2019 09:09 Danglars wrote:Certainly don't be stupid enough to make this about Muslim vs Christian. I hear all the time here that there's this tremendous cost keeping people on death row for decades waiting for appeals (etc), and I don't want this sudden flip towards allowing all kinds of delay proceedings at the very last moment. You're the disingenuous one trying to call disingenuous bs on others.
It's just another case of "If you're going to do it, do it right." Plenty of us would rather he not be up for execution, but that isn't an option. You want a death penalty? Don't bitch when there's flack because it isn't being done properly.
This bullshit line of thinking is "leaving Syria" all over again.
edit: To tack on, don't think you got away with lumping Islam in with Pastafarianism, which isn't a religion that is recognized by the US government, in your flippant dismissal of the religious option(singular) available. I see you.
|
United States13816 Posts
I think you guys are selling this "religious discrimination" really short. There are the same issues that are dealt with in the army with having different religious leanings being served in their chaplain corps. Its perfectly acceptable to just have the one religious representative, that being said having connections to facilitate a different religion should be an expected practice during an execution.
The issue happens already in various hospitals when you don't have a Catholic priest on call for Catholic patients and vice versa. I had an uncle that struggled with having a Catholic priest look over him in his final days as there was no protestant for him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
