SCOTUS under Trump


That line of thinking is so stupid that I’m done even trying to have a discussion about it.


Thinking over my responses to you and scottagibson, I think it comes down to this:

Ray clearly did not know what would happen in the execution chamber. Both of your arguments presuppose that the state was obligated to inform him of everything that would happen, and fully justify it. I disagree, because I think he was obligated to inform himself and the state is rarely obligated to fully justify its decisions.


How can he inform himself if the state refuses to give him information?


The man is about to be murdered by the states and we can’t grant this one request? We live in a shitty country.


Unlike a Christian inmate, who’s going to get a Christian minister in the chamber whether he informs himself or not. Ain’t religious freedom wonderful?

The owners of Masterpiece Bakeshop and Hobby Lobby have such important religious convictions that they cannot be obligated to engage in basically normal commerce and must be permitted exceptions to the law. Ray? Not so much. I wonder what the difference is between the two?


Yeah, those are my thoughts too.


No, a man is about to be punished for committing horrific crimes.

But really, his crimes are somewhat immaterial to this issue, beyond as I pointed out, suggesting that he was in fact not a pious Muslim at all.


Why should we assume that Muslim murderers aren’t really Muslims but that Christian murders are really Christians? Why should the state assume that?


If we start letting the state sort out who’s pious and who isn’t…should be a scary thought for about 90%+ of Christians! Let’s start with the politicians…


Only Christians are allowed their come-to-Jesus moment. It says it right there in the Constitution. /s

Time was people were drawn and quartered in public for their crimes. Then they were just decapitated. Then hanged. Now they’re just given lethal injection.

Maybe eventually the US will join the rest of the civilized world and realize that capital punishment is nothing more than vengeance. I get it, I do, if a loved one or even one of my pets was a victim I’d want the fucker to hang, but the state should rise above those emotions (and please don’t start with the spreadsheet excuse, a just and sane society is more than a balance sheet.)


The same way as everyone else. Discovery, deposition, subpoena.

Both of them asserted their rights after following the accepted court procedures. If either of them had failed to file their complaints in time, then they would have lost as well.

I think a lot of these arguments hinge on the fact that execution is different than paying a penalty under the ACA or being fined for not baking a cake. You can always reverse the fine, but you can’t reverse an execution.

So I understand why people are arguing that we should make exceptions in this case and waive normal deadlines. When we execute the guy, we want to feel good about ourselves, so we should give him accommodations that nobody else normally gets.

But that’s BS. We make and enforce court rules because they are fair to everyone. If we feel guilty about following the usual rules when we execute someone, the problem isn’t the usual rules. The problem is that the death penalty is inherently wrong. The solution is not to ignore the legal procedures that work fine in every other case. The solution is to join the civilized world and abolish the death penalty.


I don’t think those people are pious Christians either.

If you rape and murder a child, you aren’t doing the Lord’s work.

It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t respect your rights of course. But it did suggest that in this case, the lack of a religious man of the cloth present next to him likely didn’t really matter.


How can he do those things if he doesn’t know he needs to?

You see the massive flaw in your argument right? Cause it’s driving me insane and why I tried to get out of this conversation.


They could be after being in prison for 20 years, which most of them probably would be before being executed.


He knew he needed to file a complaint to the court. This is obvious, because he did file a complaint. Having done so, he can get access to whatever he reasonably needs.


But the state thinks they might be. Else why employ a Christian minister to comfort them in the execution chamber? That’s kind of the point here, that the state offers something that is a clear preference for one religious group.


You’re not really offering this as a serious response, are you? Otherwise I can’t make any sense of your argument. You say that his complaint was late, so it doesn’t count; and that he must / have could have known earlier because he knew at the time of his late complaint?


Like I said, this isn’t about whether the state should respect your rights or whatever. His piousness is immaterial to what the state should do.

It only has an impact on whether I feel pity for this guy. I don’t really. I think he was just trying to delay his execution.


Ray had the basis to make a complaint, but it wasn’t a slam dunk. As I mentioned, out of >500 inmates, only 8-10 attend the imam’s monthly service. And the prison is unable to pay for full guard staffing. So there is a reasonable case to be made that hiring a Muslim chaplain is not worth the expense. For similar reasons, when you walk into (say) a VA hospital, you might find a Christian chaplain but not necessarily a Sikh chaplain.

I’m saying that if his request was made in November, then his complaint might not have been late. Somebody dropped the ball.


This should be easy. The State employs a christian minister for its christian inmates. It doesn’t employ an imam for its islamic prisoners. The State allows the christian minister to be with inmates it executes but excludes non-employees from the chamber. To avoid an appearance of religious preference, unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause, the State should have a policy allowing non-christian inmates access to their respective clergy during execution. The State’s employee policy does not override its duty to avoid favoring one religion over another,. The State failed to provide this access, no matter when it was requested, no matter why it was requested, but would have accomodated a christian’s request.

Can you really not see the problem?