If Ramsay Bolton were made real and installed on the U.S. Supreme Court, he would sound exactly like Neil Gorsuch in today’s opinion in Bucklew v. Precythe. While the opinion is dressed in all the civilized finery one expects from a high court decree, those trappings do not hide the savagery and cruelty animating its existence.
Perhaps Lustitia (Lady Justice) wears a blindfold because she is shackled to observe the American “Justice” system. This SCOTUS decision is just the latest in a litany of resistance to The Enlightenment.
The Supreme Court is all the proof anyone needs to prove the the Constitution was never intended to establish a democracy. No small group of people would ever have such power in a democracy or even in a functioning republic. This latest decision also proves, once again, that the notion of the Court being neither Republican or Democrat or somehow above politics is total BS.
The assertion and negotiation of boundaries is the stuff of ‘culture’. We frequently talk about polarization which is in constant aerial display like fireworks. Stunning to me is the extent to which the polarization is, as noted, between a form of cognitive ‘lock-down’ and ‘evolving’ understanding. Industry and financial system are ‘going global’ with all that entailsregarding laws as exercised on high.
In the mean time you can practically hear the lip smacking among the power brokers as they manufacture consent on the invisible jail house for the mass of citizens, in turn by carrying the punitive measures for those of us who, increasingly illegitimately, get thrown behind for-profit bars.
Perhaps we are living witness to a variety of causes:
the ‘economy’ theories, so fundamentally flawed, are turning the mass of citizens against the ‘tinkle-down’ while having such egregious extraction upward from legitimate lives being institutionalized. That is to say, we are living through a collapse in slow motion, which has the hegemons spooked no end. What they do best is weaponize ___ (fill in the blank)
the process of ‘globalization’ is nothing of the sort. It is organized crime with its primary weapon being dominance over linguistic expression of ideas and speaking truth to power. Hegemons, particularly criminal hegemons in distress, don’t like that.
Wasn’t he the guy Obama appointed but republicans would not have it? only because it was an Obama appointment.
Confronting these supremes and removing them is the only savior we have and we better come up with a way to it or we won’t be able to bring us back in the light of day, remove money from politics, protection of women.
These five are the worst of the worst of Americans. Roberts lately has been holding some restraint? wonder what is motive is?
If the founders wanted to outlaw punishments that were considered cruel and where unusual at the founding they could easily have said that, with language like “now cruel and unusual”;, but why would they do anything so stupid? Why would our founders want to outlaw punishments in 2019 that were unusual 200 years previous - that would be madness, what conceivably would be the point. There’s a good reason why “unusual” was used: If the particular punishment under consideration is being widely used at the time of consideration by the court, that would argue against its being outlawed. Why would it be relevant whether or not it was unusual in previous times? If every citizen thinks a particular punishment is cruel should it be considered constitutional because it was once not considered cruel, even when perhaps they were unaware of the pain the particular punishment caused? We know a lot more now, for example, the damage done by solitary confinement? Should we lock ourselves into the ignorance of the past?
Would this originalist interpretation apply to all adjectives? Would the adjective, “fast”; mean what was considered fast; in 1776? Would retirement age mean what the retirement age was in 1776? Would “the President” mean the guy who was President in 1776?
The thing I don’t understand is this: why is it so difficult to execute a man by lethal injection? Veterinarians do it all the time. It is known as putting an animal to sleep, and that is what happens. I have assisted at four such procedures and each one was beautifully peaceful.
From the Washington Examiner:
“The medical condition, cavernous hemangioma, causes blood-filled tumors to grow in Bucklew’s head, neck, and throat, which can rupture and bleed. If he does receive Missouri’s lethal injection method, Bucklew will likely struggle to breathe throughout the procedure, causing a tumor in his throat to rupture.
His lawyers said his mouth and airway will subsequently fill with blood, causing him to “choke and cough” on his own blood throughout the process.
Rather than undergo Missouri’s lethal injection protocol, Bucklew proposed death by lethal gas.“
Essentially his execution would not be like a painless sleep, but rather rupturing followed by drowning in his own blood. This is what that devil Gorsuch thinks is Constitutionally acceptable.
Keep in mind that the Democratic “leadership” is willy nilly signing off on such sadists nominated for lower court seats.
The Nazis were experts at killing people. Do you suggest following them?
Of course not. What gave you that idea? I disapprove of capital punishment of any form. My point was that if you have to execute people, it does not have to horrible. Maybe,though,the executioners get a sadistic pleasure out of the act.
Anyone would think that I was a Gorsuch supporter! Nothing could be further from the truth. I was merely questioning why it should be so difficult to kill a man painlessly. One has to conclude that a painless death is not vengeful enough.
Maybe its your wording. I think it would be “difficult” to execute anyone whether the procedure worked or not. I guess you are just asking an intellectual question but the whole concept is distasteful to me. I guess we are of the same opinion on this matter of executions which I do appreciate.
Ironically, if capital punishment is supposed to deter murders, then a person convicted of murder should be tortured to death in front of the public. In the Middle Ages, heretics were burned at the stake in the center of town.
The argument that there should be a painless death (euthanasia) only applies if you want to help a person die. Capital punishment is retributive justice and the pain suffered by the prisoner is justified because of an eye for an eye.
The only problem for all those Christians who want capital punishment is that their Lord and Savior told them to reject an eye for an eye and turn the other cheek.
As Paul Lazzaro said in “Slaughterhouse Five”: “revenge is the sweetest thing there is.”
But Gandhi said: if you practice an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, the entire world will be blind and toothless.
The whole concept is awful.
Hi jneastra; sigh—but George Washington , when angry at some soldiers, many of whom were not even given boots in winter----- well George once made some soldiers kill their friends for disobeying what General Washington thought was correct.
But ----we are a nation of strange people; remember none of the presidents since Bush 1 ever served in the military: Clinton, Bush 2, Obama and Trump—all 4 of whom bombed people and nations to smithereens. So torture and the power to murder and maim seem to be a modern American presidential necessity-----and this horror has now infected some of the Supremes with even more power to draw and quarter the republic in their own likeness, : (
There, you’ve made your best argument! This is why capital punishment should be outlawed. Period. There is no benefit to it, except white male privilege and revenge. That is why we still have it.
like so many other bad things happening now, horrendous 5-4 Supreme Court decisions (this, labor rights, reproductive rights, voting right…) could have been avoided if more progressives supported Clinton in November 2016 instead of foolishly throwing away their votes