- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the execution of a Muslim inmate in Alabama whose request that his imam be present had been denied.
The vote was 5 to 4, with the four more liberal members of the court in dissent.
What constitutional right was violated?Interesting case. the Imam was allowed to visit him before the execution, but only a Christian minister was allowed to be with him in the execution chamber.
On one hand, this would seem to clearly violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, but the prison said this was because the Chaplain was an employee, and only employees were allowed in the execution chamber.
So, does Alabama need to hire ministers of other faiths? That would seem awkward. Better yet would be to allow the condemned to have the minister of their choice in the execution chamber. Therefore, that rule needs to be changed.
By the way, I don't give 2 craps about the prisoner. What I do care about is that SCOTUS clearly ruled that an unconstitutional rule was constitutional. Church and state are no longer separated, according to SCOTUS, as one religion has been favored over another.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/...-domineque-ray.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur.
Interesting case. the Imam was allowed to visit him before the execution, but only a Christian minister was allowed to be with him in the execution chamber.
On one hand, this would seem to clearly violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, but the prison said this was because the Chaplain was an employee, and only employees were allowed in the execution chamber.
So, does Alabama need to hire ministers of other faiths? That would seem awkward. Better yet would be to allow the condemned to have the minister of their choice in the execution chamber. Therefore, that rule needs to be changed.
By the way, I don't give 2 craps about the prisoner. What I do care about is that SCOTUS clearly ruled that an unconstitutional rule was constitutional. Church and state are no longer separated, according to SCOTUS, as one religion has been favored over another.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/...-domineque-ray.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur.
Interesting case. the Imam was allowed to visit him before the execution, but only a Christian minister was allowed to be with him in the execution chamber.
On one hand, this would seem to clearly violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, but the prison said this was because the Chaplain was an employee, and only employees were allowed in the execution chamber.
So, does Alabama need to hire ministers of other faiths? That would seem awkward. Better yet would be to allow the condemned to have the minister of their choice in the execution chamber. Therefore, that rule needs to be changed.
By the way, I don't give 2 craps about the prisoner. What I do care about is that SCOTUS clearly ruled that an unconstitutional rule was constitutional. Church and state are no longer separated, according to SCOTUS, as one religion has been favored over another.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/...-domineque-ray.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur.
So the prison has to hire one employee of the faith of each person on death row? Jobs! MAGA!
There has to be a way to compromise. I’m sure he gave his victim that consideration.
Nobody has that right.Links also note 10 other Muslims on DR. Address the issue, hire some Imams. Full time or contract. But yes he did have the right IMHO for an Imam present.
The establishment clause does not guarantee the government provide you any clergy memberLike I said, I don't give 2 craps about the prisoner, but I do give a crap about the constitution. Had this been my mother, I would have been pissed if she had not had a Rabbi with her. What don't you understand about the Establishment Clause?
The establishment clause does not guarantee the government provide you any clergy member
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Like I said, I don't give 2 craps about the prisoner, but I do give a crap about the constitution. Had this been my mother, I would have been pissed if she had not had a Rabbi with her. What don't you understand about the Establishment Clause?
Hoo boy, did THAT ever go over your head. LOL.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Interesting case. the Imam was allowed to visit him before the execution, but only a Christian minister was allowed to be with him in the execution chamber.
On one hand, this would seem to clearly violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, but the prison said this was because the Chaplain was an employee, and only employees were allowed in the execution chamber.
So, does Alabama need to hire ministers of other faiths? That would seem awkward. Better yet would be to allow the condemned to have the minister of their choice in the execution chamber. Therefore, that rule needs to be changed.
By the way, I don't give 2 craps about the prisoner. What I do care about is that SCOTUS clearly ruled that an unconstitutional rule was constitutional. Church and state are no longer separated, according to SCOTUS, as one religion has been favored over another.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/...-domineque-ray.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur.
Interesting case. the Imam was allowed to visit him before the execution, but only a Christian minister was allowed to be with him in the execution chamber.
On one hand, this would seem to clearly violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, but the prison said this was because the Chaplain was an employee, and only employees were allowed in the execution chamber.
So, does Alabama need to hire ministers of other faiths? That would seem awkward. Better yet would be to allow the condemned to have the minister of their choice in the execution chamber. Therefore, that rule needs to be changed.
By the way, I don't give 2 craps about the prisoner. What I do care about is that SCOTUS clearly ruled that an unconstitutional rule was constitutional. Church and state are no longer separated, according to SCOTUS, as one religion has been favored over another.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/...-domineque-ray.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur.
Nobody has that right.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Links also note 10 other Muslims on DR. Address the issue, hire some Imams. Full time or contract. But yes he did have the right IMHO for an Imam present.
They are not obligated to provide anyone with a clergy member at their execution, nevermind one of a persons choosing. What your citing does not guarantee they do.Hoo boy, did THAT ever go over your head. LOL.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No they dont. Nobody has that right.Well the Christians do?
Links also note 10 other Muslims on DR. Address the issue, hire some Imams. Full time or contract. But yes he did have the right IMHO for an Imam present.
Interesting case. the Imam was allowed to visit him before the execution, but only a Christian minister was allowed to be with him in the execution chamber.
On one hand, this would seem to clearly violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, but the prison said this was because the Chaplain was an employee, and only employees were allowed in the execution chamber.
So, does Alabama need to hire ministers of other faiths? That would seem awkward. Better yet would be to allow the condemned to have the minister of their choice in the execution chamber. Therefore, that rule needs to be changed.
By the way, I don't give 2 craps about the prisoner. What I do care about is that SCOTUS clearly ruled that an unconstitutional rule was constitutional. Church and state are no longer separated, according to SCOTUS, as one religion has been favored over another.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/...-domineque-ray.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur.
The establishment clause does not guarantee the government provide you any clergy member
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Good Lord! Are you kidding? Are you really this oblivious? Do yourself favor and get a copy of the constitution and actually read it. Slowly.
Interesting case. the Imam was allowed to visit him before the execution, but only a Christian minister was allowed to be with him in the execution chamber.
On one hand, this would seem to clearly violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, but the prison said this was because the Chaplain was an employee, and only employees were allowed in the execution chamber.
So, does Alabama need to hire ministers of other faiths? That would seem awkward. Better yet would be to allow the condemned to have the minister of their choice in the execution chamber. Therefore, that rule needs to be changed.
By the way, I don't give 2 craps about the prisoner. What I do care about is that SCOTUS clearly ruled that an unconstitutional rule was constitutional. Church and state are no longer separated, according to SCOTUS, as one religion has been favored over another.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/...-domineque-ray.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur.
....no. State Employees have been allowed to perform State Functions, while non State-Employees have not.
That being said, this is an unnecessary travesty, a miscarriage of Justice, if not, technically, of the law. I agree - that rule needs to be changed, and pronto.
Or, you could simply explain how this violates the constitution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?