SCOTUS upholds use of midazolam in executions
- Thread starter mstp1992
- Start date
Why shouldn't they? They got same-sex marriage and government control of health insurance, among other left-wing ideals; why stop when you're on a roll?
What's wrong with that? Justices use concurrences, dissents, and denials of writs of certiorari to raise & re-raise decided issues all the time.
2 on the Court wanted to talk about it, the other 7 didn't.
I said I found it distasteful, but I suppose not entirely inappropriate since other justices have used the bench as a platform as well.
Yep.
Hell, I'm all for the (for instance) the spouse or family of a murder victim getting 15 minutes to do damn well what they please to the murderer.
If they want to get out the tire irons and blowtorches, so be it. Dead's dead. Who gives a flying fart if it's humane or not. The murderer surely didn't show any humanity to their victim, so why should we give a crap how we do it?
Then just do it with the slam dunk cases like the kid in S.C.
I don't think he is going to be released upon appeal.
You might want to read the 5th, 6th and 7th amendments too. Don't ever claim again that cons love the constitution. Holy hades.
C'mon, man... you had every opportunity here to respond with "BE THE ALPHA THAT WE ARE".
Two wrongs don't make a right. You know, the new testament and stuff.
Part of being the Alpha is know when and how to use your power.
Absolutely we need to shit can the death penalty. It doesn't work. Further, the state shouldn't be in the business of killing people.
So, we shouldn't have a military? Maybe the state should just be in the business of letting people kill people, like they do with abortion.
Aren't they in the business with all the homicides and illegal activities going on?
Am I to take the anti-death penalty folks here would look at the person that just raped, dismembered their (for example) 10 year old daughter and not want to kill said person? Would you really just say, go sit in jail and enjoy 3 squares a day, tv, education, sex with celly, etc for the rest of your life (and remember your daughter was 10 - with for all you know a long life ahead of her before said POS made a decision).
sorry, I would want said POS dead - period.
Just need one of each below:
I didn't mean to suggest I found in inappropriate or tasteless or anything else. I just was struck by the idea of the lefties pumped up about being on a roll and taking a shot at other stuff on their agenda.
It is pretty hard for a baby to willfully commit murder so comparing a murderer to a baby does not really work.
We're lawless enough as a society without taking away anymore accountability.
I know that the big "A" word is scary to Libs, but c'mon.
Yes/No. The original plan called for state militias, not no military. We saw how state militias worked to defeat the Brits.
I'm all for outlawing the death penalty. Just include it with outlawing abortion and you have my support. Will you join me in this cause?
The guy doesn't just go away. So neither the gov't nor the criminal can run away from the case. That keeps the gov't honest in prosecutions and exacts the full measure of punishment for the guilty.
Darn, I thought it was the olive branch we could share or the peace pipe we could smoke. So, let's save the life of the most despicable human being alive and kill the human beings who've are innocent of any crime. There only "crime" is asking to be allowed to live.
Disappointing. I thought this was an olive branch we could both share, or a peace pipe we could both smoke. Instead we protect the life of a murderer who committed atrocious acts, but kill the human being who's innocent of any crime, except the "crime" of wanting to live.
Give up civil rights for millions for civil rights for a few dozen? Jeremy Bentham would say that is a bad deal. Especially so when I think I'm going to get most of what I want soon. When Nebraska is outlawing the DP, its on its last legs.
So now the minority in a civil rights issue is a bad deal? Seems like a weird argument to make coming from you.
Break it down, I think you will resolve your objection. In this hypothetical scenario I was given the option of civil rights for only one group. I could pick a large group or a small, but not both. Obviously I want both, so I rejected the deal. Assuming you are referring to the recent SSM case, there was only civil rights for one group on trial there. There was no competing claim where choosing for one group necessarily meant denying another larger group's rights.
Didn't think SSM was part of the discussion. Looked like we were talking abut the DP and abortion. Phanton presented the choice of discontinuing the DP in exchange for discontinuing abortion and you thought that would be a "bad deal" since it was a million compared to a few dozen. I view the choice being between all the babies being aborted and criminals executed for murdering someone. The babies are the only ones in this equation who never had a choice.
