|
captainblastum posted:No - anti-death penalty groups are not responsible for using cruel methods to kill somebody. Only the executions are. If they're actively blocking access to the not-cruel methods, then they are entirely responsible. Let's just require the companies to provide the drugs if they value their access to the US market.
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Its just "funny" that we are debating which method of killing a human being is the least cruel. If we have to do that, then obviously there's probably a way to analyze the various available execution methods, but it is still funny. The issue is that it's not what we're OK with, it's that the constitution explicitly prohibits cruel punishments. So all of these arguments you're making are irrelevant: what is actually relevant is which wins, the due process clause permitting execution with due process, or the 8th If there is no way an execution can avoid being cruel, then you can't execute someone. I agree with the dissent that in that case, the 8th wins: the punishment on cruel punishments is categorical and the due process doesn't create an exception: it's up to the government to find a way to kill someone without it being cruel. It's not up to the convict.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Javid posted:If they're actively blocking access to the not-cruel methods, then they are entirely responsible. In what way have the people against the death penalty overridden the agency of the US government in deciding to execute people with lovely methods?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Javid posted:Let's just require the companies to provide the drugs if they value their access to the US market. I think the odds that this kind of a law passes congress (regardless of whether the president would sign it) would be close to zero. I'm also not sure if it is constitutional to enforce a federal law forcing foreign drug companies wanting to do business in the US to sell us a drug they make but don't want to sell to us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You don't understand causality then. This is the same argument that racists use to say that black people are the real racists
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
If any legislature holds surgery as we know it hostage over the goddamn death penalty, i will eat several hats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
The Texas Attorney General issued an interpretive opinion of the Supreme Court's ruling today. I'll just leave the summary here:The Honorable Ken Paxton posted:County clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may provide accommodation of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Justices of the peace and judges also may claim that the government forcing them to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies over their religious objections, particularly when other authorized individuals have no objection to conducting such ceremonies, is not the least restrictive means of furthering any compelling governmental interest in ensuring that such ceremonies occur. The pdf
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
If your religious convictions prevent you from upholding the law of the land, you might just not be cut out to be a judge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
So they could basically say their religious convictions prevent them from marrying blacks, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Capt. Sticl posted:Not knowing anything about medicine, why can you not simply drastically up the dosage of Midazolam to increase the state of unconcsiousness? The medical evidence presented shows that midazolam is subject to a "ceiling effect" whereby additional dosage does not produce increased clinical effects. It is not known exactly where this maximum effective dosage lies and what level of unconsciousness it brings, which is one of the arguments that the inmates make - it's cruel to proceed knowing that there's a maximum effective dosage but without knowing if they are getting that maximum dosage and what medical impact the dosage will have. Northjayhawk posted:In this case the justices spent quite a bit of time during arguments flat-out saying that they are not going to ignore the fact that the anti-death penalty activists were trying to make it difficult to get more effective drugs and pretend that better drugs are available when they effectively aren't. I understand that, but I think this is a terrible line of reasoning. The 8th doesn't require that a punishment be "the least cruel of all available methods", it requires that it not be cruel, period. As Sotomayor notes, this prohibition is categorical: quote:Simply stated, the “Eighth Further, the court does not engage in a fair analysis of other methods of execution that may well be less cruel and unusual. As Sotomayor notes (discussing primarily a firing squad): quote:At least from a Sub Par fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Can't we just give people massive doses of pure morphine or something? Or is Bayer gonna stop selling that to us too and we'll have to source heroin from afgani warlords to make sure we can kill people correctly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
rscott posted:Can't we just give people massive doses of pure morphine or something? Or is Bayer gonna stop selling that to us too and we'll have to source heroin from afgani warlords to make sure we can kill people correctly. In an ironic twist, Texas will legalize growing marijuana so it can overdose people on THC, thus proving the harmful effects of marijuana.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
rscott posted:Can't we just give people massive doses of pure morphine or something? Or is Bayer gonna stop selling that to us too and we'll have to source heroin from afgani warlords to make sure we can kill people correctly. Every major drug manufacturer to date has refused to allow any of their drugs to be used for killing prisoners, also the APhA and PCCA have said that if you get caught making or prescribing the drugs your membership might be revoked.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Am I reading correctly that the standard for "cruel" is not based on any general standard of pain or harm, but is instead based on whether the method is less painful/gruesome than other methods available? It just seems odd from a layman's perspective that something which may inflict terrible pain is not cruel by virtue of it being better than being burned or stoned to death.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:Am I reading correctly that the standard for "cruel" is not based on any general standard of pain or harm, but is instead based on whether the method is less painful/gruesome than other methods available? It just seems odd from a layman's perspective that something which may inflict terrible pain is not cruel by virtue of it being better than being burned or stoned to death. The logic of the ruling is that, first: capital punishment is permitted by the constitution. Second: since any execution is by its very nature at least somewhat 'cruel', an execution method has to be somewhat 'cruel' as well. Therefore: the determination of whether an execution method is 'cruel' is relative to other methods of execution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:Am I reading correctly that the standard for "cruel" is not based on any general standard of pain or harm, but is instead based on whether the method is less painful/gruesome than other methods available? It just seems odd from a layman's perspective that something which may inflict terrible pain is not cruel by virtue of it being better than being burned or stoned to death. You are not. The Court proceeded from the assumption that certain lethal injection protocols were not cruel (from prior cases). Only based on that comparison did the less/more painful issue come up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Without having read their reasoning, I would venture that they may be thinking of death itself as the cruelty. At least that's what I'd argue if I wanted to claim that capital punishment was unconstitutional. The Breyer argument isn't about that at all, at least in sections I read. It talks about things like high degree of false convictions, high degree of arbitrariness in its application, long appeals processes making any sort of discouraging effect negligible. With respect to crueal and unusual it IIRC only talks about the unusual angle, with states moving away from it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
The OK ruling isn't final or dispositive on the case. It was a ruling on the preliminary injunction request and it was denied at all levels. There is still going to be a trial in Oklahoma on the case which will certainly be appealed as well. This isn't the end of this case by any means. This just means they have to go to court and don't get their preliminary injunction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:Am I reading correctly that the standard for "cruel" is not based on any general standard of pain or harm, but is instead based on whether the method is less painful/gruesome than other methods available? It just seems odd from a layman's perspective that something which may inflict terrible pain is not cruel by virtue of it being better than being burned or stoned to death. That's what this case turned on. Up to today, the Court mostly looked at an individual punishment and decided if it was cruel and unusual on its own. Today, the Court decided that, with respect to lethal injection at least, the inmate must show that a given method is more cruel than another available method. This represents a big change and is basically a direct response to the success anti-death penalty advocates have had making lethal injection drugs hard to come by. The same Justices who on Friday castigated LGBT advocates for turning to the courts rather than work to convince "the people" have now turned around and told inmates that they must die a cruel death because of their very success in convincing "the people". Odd indeed. Sub Par fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
rscott posted:Can't we just give people massive doses of pure morphine or something? Or is Bayer gonna stop selling that to us too and we'll have to source heroin from afgani warlords to make sure we can kill people correctly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
I have always felt that there was no real use to the "unusual" punishments ban and I struggle to think how it could be applied without banning any novel punishment.Mr. Nice! posted:The OK ruling isn't final or dispositive on the case. It was a ruling on the preliminary injunction request and it was denied at all levels. There is still going to be a trial in Oklahoma on the case which will certainly be appealed as well. This isn't the end of this case by any means. This just means they have to go to court and don't get their preliminary injunction. Without an injunction the case rapidly gets mooted, by executing the prisoners. Denying an injunction is effectively dispositive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
I don't think there's been enough mocking of Thomas's dissent in the voter redistricting case, where he bitches that the Supreme Court upholds THIS voter initiative, but overturns anti-gay voter initiatives and other, even more clearly unconstitutional, ballot initiatives. I mean, if you overturn one ballot initiative, you have to overturn them all and you're not allowed to praise them while having struck down unconstitutional ones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:The Texas Attorney General issued an interpretive opinion of the Supreme Court's ruling today. I'll just leave the summary here: This came out yesterday but I only saw the summary and not the full opinion. Basically he doesn't think that there's any way to compel judges, justices of the peace, or any minister to perform any marriage as their duties are entirely optional. County Clerks are pretty much stuck doing it, though, and he tries to skate around it by saying they'll have to look at each situation based upon the facts of each office, but he's pretty clear that clerks throwing up their hands and saying they won't issue any certificates at all are in violation of their duties.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:half-framed structural consequentialism, (A single innocent being hung is too many because I don't understand Blackstone/abstract numbers) Tell me more about why thinking a single innocent person be hung is bad being a stupid idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That would be a bad argument (see: all punishment systems developed during the relevant textual period starting from 1689 and going forward, all the SCOTUS cases saying, "um, what? no"). You know that's the argument that the dissent makes, right? That the death penalty itself is cruel and unusual. Your claim that the death penalty is obviously not unconstitutional, because we allowed the death penalty when we adopted the Bill of Rights, is just wrong. First, the relevant period is now, not the time the amendments were adopted. As the dissent notes, a “claim that punishment is excessive is judged not by the standards that prevailed in 1685 when Lord Jeffreys presided over the ‘Bloody Assizes’ or when the Bill of Rights was adopted, but rather by those that currently prevail.” Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304, 311 (2002). Whether the Court would have found the practice constitutional in 1689 is not relevant. The dissent then goes on to note that the Court has declared the death penalty unconstitutional before, only to then reauthorize it in 1976. The reauthorization was based on the idea that the states could repair the constitutional infirmities identified in 1973. Justice Breyer then says that we've had 40 years to find out whether the death penalty is constitutional, and the conclusion he reaches is that it is not. And he is not talking about specific methods, he says the death penalty is likely unconstitutional "in and of itself." Justice Breyer posted:Almost 40 years of studies, surveys, and experience strongly indicate, however, that this effort has failed. Today’s administration of the death penalty involves three fundamental constitutional defects: (1) serious unreliability, (2) arbitrariness in application, and (3) unconscionably long delays that undermine the death penalty’s penological purpose. Perhaps as a result, (4) most places within the United States have abandoned its use. You can think Justice Breyer is making a "bad argument" but you should probably actually engage his argument if you're going to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Has Thomas ever authored an opinion for the majority?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Devor posted:From Scotusblog: Honestly hope the conservatives justices all die slowly in fires at some point so they can get a feel for the poo poo they inflict on people. Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:And I would add Obamacare Obamacare really wasn't in doubt (though the 6-3 was a welcome surprise over 5-4). Even if Kennedy and Roberts both wanted to kill it neither of them want to take part in cratering the US insurance industry because it could be catastrophic for the country's economy. If there would have ever been a "gently caress it we side with X for the sake of stability" this would've been it. ZenVulgarity posted:This line of reasoning makes sense from a business perspective (which is why I'm surprised Roberts isn't writing the opinion) as some industries could simply go under with excessive regulations ...and? Excessive regulation of nuclear power hasn't stopped despite it strangling the hell out of what would otherwise be an extremely useful energy source until the US can do some massive renewable development. If the EPA regulates something like Coal to the point that the industry collapses then good. gently caress coal and its myriad of problems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:Has Thomas ever authored an opinion for the majority? You might be kind of joking, but yes, he writes them all the time. I haven't seen final numbers for this term, but last term he wrote 7 majority opinions, all of the other justices wrote either 7 or 8. Keep in mind, the court has a lot of unanimous decisions (48 last term), so there's plenty to go around, and the court tries to equally balance opinion writing workload. You can get all of this information at http://www.scotusblog.com/reference/stat-pack/.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:Has Thomas ever authored an opinion for the majority? Yeah, CDCR v. Morales for example e: since I was beaten with a better answer have a list of Thomas' opinions as penance
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't think there's been enough mocking of Thomas's dissent in the voter redistricting case, where he bitches that the Supreme Court upholds THIS voter initiative, but overturns anti-gay voter initiatives and other, even more clearly unconstitutional, ballot initiatives. I mean, if you overturn one ballot initiative, you have to overturn them all and you're not allowed to praise them while having struck down unconstitutional ones. Oh, the Arizona case turned out good?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Not My Leg posted:You might be kind of joking, but yes, he writes them all the time. Only really started following the SCOTUS since college so my exposure to Clarence Thomas is usually a concurrence based in 1796 case law. That and I'm a biologist, so this is the hobbiest of hobbies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:This came out yesterday but I only saw the summary and not the full opinion. Basically he doesn't think that there's any way to compel judges, justices of the peace, or any minister to perform any marriage as their duties are entirely optional. Yeah, I haven't read it, but from what I've heard his opinion isn't that big of a deal. A minister's or judge's job is not to marry someone, thats just something they are allowed to do for odd historical reasons. They don't have to marry anyone at all if they don't want to. There obviously needs to be some kind of method always locally available, and a county clerk who is required to process the paperwork for them seems fine to ensure access.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
So when are we going to see any examples of "religious freedom" that aren't from Christians (or maybe Jews, dunno)? I'm assuming religious freedom in this context explicitly means "good Christian values" and that my membership of the Church of Satan, for example, means nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Obamacare really wasn't in doubt (though the 6-3 was a welcome surprise over 5-4). Even if Kennedy and Roberts both wanted to kill it neither of them want to take part in cratering the US insurance industry because it could be catastrophic for the country's economy. If there would have ever been a "gently caress it we side with X for the sake of stability" this would've been it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
I don't think there've been any notable ones from Jews. That's partially a numbers thing - there are totally anti-gay Jews out there but there's just less Jews in most places where this poo poo comes up. And in part it's that the whole phrase 'Judeo-Christian' is in many ways assuming an alliance of view between Jews and Christians that does not really exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:Has Thomas ever authored an opinion for the majority? Looks like he was the author for 49 5-4 decisions, and a lot more for 6-3 through 9-0 decisions. http://scdb.wustl.edu/data.php Edit: Maybe fewer than 49? Some entries look to be duplicates. zeroprime fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Yeah, I haven't read it, but from what I've heard his opinion isn't that big of a deal. A minister's or judge's job is not to marry someone, thats just something they are allowed to do for odd historical reasons. They don't have to marry anyone at all if they don't want to. I'd say it's a big deal that he's saying that county clerks, literal officers of the executive branch of government, don't need to issue licenses unless someone reviews the "facts of each office", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Radbot posted:So when are we going to see any examples of "religious freedom" that aren't from Christians (or maybe Jews, dunno)? I'm assuming religious freedom in this context explicitly means "good Christian values" and that my membership of the Church of Satan, for example, means nothing. Well there's a perfect example in that a huge amount of the rabbis who wouldn't perform a gay marriage also wouldn't perform a marriage between a jew and a non-jew and are mysteriously somehow still allowed to do that and haven't been forced to stop by the interracial marriage mafia forcing secular demands down the throats of all religions 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
The Scalia dissent in Arizona is interesting in that it makes a good case for no standing, but right after that he abandons those principles by joining with the Roberts dissent because he does not like the majority opinion. I have to wonder what would have happened had Kennedy swung the other way on this, the liberals may have joined Scalia on the no standing argument since it gets the result they want, but I don't know if Scalia would have stuck to that argument if it actually had a chance of being the majority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
Radbot posted:So when are we going to see any examples of "religious freedom" that aren't from Christians (or maybe Jews, dunno)? I'm assuming religious freedom in this context explicitly means "good Christian values" and that my membership of the Church of Satan, for example, means nothing. Historically most religious freedom cases have been about non-Christians (or very minor sects) since those are the most likely to be discriminated against. Employment Division v Smith, and O Centro, and Prison Beards and the recent Abercrombie case are some easy examples
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:33
|
|
