Disagreed with what? If the 11th circuit court can overturn a finding of fact, then they can. Let them do their job.
I think his point is that the legal language is neutral with respect to religion.
Disagreed that this warranted an exception. Courts are supposed to follow precedent, just because they can do something doesnât mean they should.
But not in the application. The state employs a Christian minister so that he is available to Christians, but makes no accommodation of any kind to non-Christians, then argues that everyone has the same access to the Christian. It isnât a neutral practice.
Even the last-minute criticism is off base. If they only permit employees in the chamber, then there isnât any accommodation they can offer no matter how much time he gives them.
They do make accommodations, but the request for accommodation has to be made in a timely manner.
Even the last-minute criticism is off base. If they only permit employees in the chamber, then there isnât any accommodation they can offer no matter how much time he gives them.
Have they ever let a non-employee in the room? Have they ever hired an Imam as an accommodation? Iâm guessing the answer is ânoâ. In their own briefs, the state says the accommodation they make is to remove the Christian minister.
You are arguing that the state should have hired a Muslim chaplain with the authority to enter the execution chamber. Which is probably true, and the court probably would have agreed if someone were asking for that.
But thatâs not what Ray asked for, and not what the court was deciding. Ray wanted a non-employee in the chamber, of his own choosing. Which the state wonât allow.
And the court was not even deciding whether the state should allow non-employees into the chamber. Because that decision would take some time for both sides to argue.
What the court was deciding was whether it was very likely that Rayâs argument would succeed. Thatâs the only basis for granting a stay. And I have to say that the state probably has decent reasons for only allowing employees in the chamber. Maybe they are wrong, but they arenât obviously wrong. And if so, Rayâs petition fails.
Well Iâd say those reasons probably include giving Christians a spiritual adviser and allowing them to tell Muslims to pound sand. This is freaking Alabama. I had to double check to make sure that his religion wasnât the reason they were executing him in the first place.
Iâm going to hazard a guess that California had similar rules about non-employees.
Again, I agree that Alabama should hire non-Christian chaplains. But nobody was asking for that in this case.
I donât think they need to hire non-Christian chaplains but they should have an easily navigated process that allows them into the chamber when requested. Never underestimate the infrastructure that a state will set up in order to maintain racist or hate-based policies.
As far as California goes, they rarely execute anyone at all. Last one was in 2006. I canât find anything on their actual rules though.
Not explicitly. Iâm arguing that the stateâs law and practice are facially discriminatory, that the court has an obligation to address that, and that they are not limited to agreeing with the inmateâs preferred remedy.
The court could e.g. exclude all spiritual advisors from the chamber, whether they are employed by the state or not.
Sure, someone could argue that. But that would take months or years to decide, and it was way beyond the scope of this hearing.
I know this isnât directly relevant to whether the Imam should have been allowed in the room with Ray, or just into the witness chamber (where he was, in fact, admitted), but Dominique Ray was exactly the sort of person who should be executed.
He raped and murdered a 15 year old. His defense was that the other guy was the primary aggressor (the other guy said it was all Rayâs idea). Ray was already in jail for a double murder. Those victims were 13 and 18.
Unless youâre against the death penalty in all cases, this isnât a sympathetic complainant. Having his imam be one room away while he died doesnât seem too high a price.
Nor would it be for white Christian child rapist murderers. So really, those details are irrelevant to the question here.
Do you like this decision? Agree with it, I mean?
I donât know. I think it narrowly turns on whether Ray really could have prepared his request sooner, or if the procedures really were only revealed at the last moment.
In favor of the state, I am familiar with big government bureaucracies and believe that they are generally pretty hidebound and predictable, for anyone who bothers to examine how they work. They really arenât good at surprises. In addition, Ray made another last-minute request alongside this one (a change of execution method) that looks suspiciously like a stall for time.
On the other hand, I am prejudiced against Alabama and in favor of Kagan. So Iâm left with vague doubts about the decision. But of course there is no reason for a court to share my prejudices.
Regardless, I am always against the death penalty. Even in this case. But if execution is inevitable as in this case, I donât see good arguments for delaying it. Youâre just postponing the disappointment.
Somewhat, if not precisely, apropos, this article is worth a read, though itâs rather tough going.
I donât think even the lower court disputed when Ray found out about the problem. They just decided that he had plenty of time to find it out himself before he actually did, so itâs on him.
So hereâs my analogy. Suppose you lived on a military base with very limited visitor access. And suppose there the only chaplain is a Christian. Itâs one thing to recognize this as a problem and make a formal request to get a rabbi on base. Itâs another thing to rush a random rabbi through the guardpost on the morning of your sonâs bris. I mean, you had plenty of time to anticipate this problem.
Definitely tough to read. I canât imagine the heartbreak if I had to face this situation. Itâs pathetic and just so, so wrong that the right wing has twisted complicated issues like this into a âOMG BABY KILLERâ rally cry.
This was hard to read but I think this line really pinpoints a good part of the issue.
I believe there are fates worse than death.
I think a number of anti-choice advocates donât believe this.