Justices Allow Execution of Muslim Death Row Inmate Who Sought Imam (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

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.

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.

 

[trouble13]

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.

What constitutional right was violated?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[JANFU]

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.

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.

 

[chuckiechan]

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.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Yeah, it is wrong that the Christian chaplain was the only one who could be with him. This is the problem with government chaplains in general. They tend to only cater to particular religions.

 

[danarhea]

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.

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?

 

[OrphanSlug]

I cannot begin to explain the epic mistake being made here and the gravity of where this will go, and this is what happens with government and religion mix in the first place even in a passive way.

Intentional or not no longer matters, Alabama in this case established a preferred religion in deciding who was qualified to be involved on the behalf of the one being executed. Someone Muslim could have an official of that religion visit them but not be present during the execution, someone else Christian can have both.

It may be a technicality but still Alabama ****ed this all up, and I doubt this will be the last time we see this sort of challenge.

 

[trouble13]

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.

Nobody has that right.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

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?

The establishment clause does not guarantee the government provide you any clergy member

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[danarhea]

The establishment clause does not guarantee the government provide you any clergy member

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

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.

 

[Crovax]

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?

I’m pretty sure you lose a bunch of constitutional rights when you are in prison for murder. So while it may not be constitutional in a normal sense in a prison setting it seems in line with the rest of suspensions of constitutional rights

 

[Fletch]

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.

So how did this ruling violate that clause?

 

[cpwill]

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.

 

[Xelor]

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.

Red:
What? Why would hiring non-Christian clerics be/seem "awkward?"

Blue:
Yes. That makes sense.

 

[JANFU]

Nobody has that right.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Well the Christians do?

 

[Dittohead not!]

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.

Wouldn't it be easier to just change the rule and allow non employees to be present? Sounds to me like a silly bureaucratic sort of rule anyway. If they do hire an Imam, do they have to hire a Hindu holy man? How about a Wiccan? Maybe an atheist to reassure the prisoner that he won't go to Hell?

Just change the silly rule.

 

[trouble13]

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.

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.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Well the Christians do?

No they dont. Nobody has that right.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[apdst]

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.

Change the policy to accomadate special situations like this.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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 "Rule" is not a problem IMHO.

I suspect that the purpose of ensuring that the member of whatever faith is an employee is to control access to the incarcerated person; i.e. having someone vetted and bound to a set of rules to ensure no disruptions or other possible "escape" issues however far-fetched the idea may be.

The SOLUTION is to hire members of diverse clergy if there is a representative sample of that faith among the prison population. That means hiring imams, rabbis, etc. to serve such needs.

 

[Atomic Kid]

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.

 

[Fletch]

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.

Or, you could simply explain how this violates the constitution.

 

[rjay]

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.

There should be no priests, imams, ministers or any faith leader allowed to be an employee of the state, in that capacity.

This includes chaplains.

The government should not be in the business of hiring ministers

 

[jimbo]

....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.

Simple solution. Don't allow clergy of any faith.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Or, you could simply explain how this violates the constitution.

Good now the two of you can do a group study. Or you can just go back to school again and this time try to stay awake.