The GOP's two Supreme Court wins: Painful lethal injections and more mercury and carcenogens

[rdean]

After the Supreme Court made major rulings in favor of the Affordable Care Act and same-sex marriage, the conservative majority of the court issued rulings in favor of striking down new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules restricting toxic emissions from power plants and the use of painful death penalty drugs. Of course, Jon Stewart was amused that these rulings were the ones that conservatives wanted to celebrate.

“So yes, gay people have the right to marry and poor people have the right to insurance, but on the bright side, America can still kill prisoners painfully and everyone else slowly,” Stewart said in the video during the Daily Show segment.

Jon Stewart Criticizes Conservative Supreme Court Rulings On Lethal Injection EPA Rules

I just watched this on the Daily Show. They showed a bunch of clips showing Republicans at Fox celebrating their twin victories.

Is this the best Republicans can do? Really? These are their victories? And Mr. Steward pointed out that the losers in the EPA case are your lungs. Was that the GOP plan? Keep people from health care and then attack their lungs?

 

[Socialist]

The GOP base primarily consists of homophobic, religious nutjobs who feed off of fox news, this doesn't surprise me.

 

[DarkFury]

WHO cares if that Boston bomber dies a painful death? He SHOULD die a painful death. He HAS earned a painful death.

 

[emilynghiem]

WHO cares if that Boston bomber dies a painful death? He SHOULD die a painful death. He HAS earned a painful death.

What if he were sentenced to work to support the expenses for himself and
that Fort Hood Shooter for the rest of both their lives?

What if he had to change that man's bed pan and diapers 2-3 times a day every day.
What if both of them were off the taxpayers roll and had to pay their own way
if they want life instead of death.

 

[Stephanie]

holy smokes. first the're taking the side of Illegal immigrants over their fellow countrymen and women. and now some freak who blew up their fellow countrymen and women. but don't call these people UnAmerican. As long as they can get in a dig in on a Republican that's all that matters to them

 

[TheOldSchool]

holy smokes. first their taking the side of Illegal immigrants over their fellow countrymen and women. and now some freak who blew up their fellow countrymen and women. but don't call these people UnAmerican. As long as they can get in a dig in on a Republican that's all that matters to them

God I hope you're a sock.

 

[DarkFury]

WHO cares if that Boston bomber dies a painful death? He SHOULD die a painful death. He HAS earned a painful death.

What if he were sentenced to work to support the expenses for himself and
that Fort Hood Shooter for the rest of both their lives?

What if he had to change that man's bed pan and diapers 2-3 times a day every day.
What if both of them were off the taxpayers roll and had to pay their own way
if they want life instead of death.

No, it's time we stood against crime. How do you pay the dead? The victim? So no, you kill their killer.

 

[emilynghiem]

holy smokes. first their taking the side of Illegal immigrants over their fellow countrymen and women. and now some freak who blew up their fellow countrymen and women. but don't call these people UnAmerican. As long as they can get in a dig in on a Republican that's all that matters to them

It's American to try to reach out and include all people and views.
So for each person who outright judges and rejects Immigrants or Muslims,
there is someone who tries to balance the scales of justice by going to the other extreme.

Both extreme enforce the necessity for the other. It isn't a true balance, but that's how the karma works
until they meet in the middle and work out the REAL issues, and not just cling to polar opposite views
to make a political statement.

I just argued with a Unitarian friend of mine who claims "not to believe in borders"
but has locks on his door of his home, and doesn't just let anyone in to raid his refrigerator and use his utilities.
Oh, but that's different. The public should be open to the public, but not private.

And when I asked about criminal trafficking and gangs coming over to commit crimes,
the answer was 'more crime is committed by citizens in this country'
I didn't ask what was causing more crime, I was pointing out you don't invite just anyone to trespass.
if you screen out criminal BEFORE hand maybe you can prevent crime victims after the fact.

Why do you have a lock on your door? And you don't make the key public for anyone to use?
Never mind, that's different.

I wish someone could explain to me the difference.

Why you don't want a wall, so that people have to register or go through checkpoint to get in,
if that's what you have with your own house: closed walls and requirement of permission and identity check before the homeowner agrees to let a guest enter.

 

[emilynghiem]

WHO cares if that Boston bomber dies a painful death? He SHOULD die a painful death. He HAS earned a painful death.

What if he were sentenced to work to support the expenses for himself and
that Fort Hood Shooter for the rest of both their lives?

What if he had to change that man's bed pan and diapers 2-3 times a day every day.
What if both of them were off the taxpayers roll and had to pay their own way
if they want life instead of death.

No, it's time we stood against crime. How do you pay the dead? The victim? So no, you kill their killer.

Killing the killer never paid for the restitution and recovery of rape victims.
It never covered the cost of losing the breadwinner of the family.

Instead it costs taxpayers even more money to either go through the million dollar capital case procedures
to justify the state taking a life; or it costs taxpayers to keep someone alive who isn't allowed to work to full capacity; and to pay for all the appeals and defense.

Why not make people pay for the costs of their crimes?
They'd have to work the rest of their lives, wouldn't that set an example and deter people?

What if all citizens had to sign an agreement to pay for the costs of any premeditated crimes
of violence or involving abuse of weapons or both, including at least 5 million for a murder.
Who could afford that if we stopped giving convicts a free ride at taxpayers expense.

Why charge law abiding taxpayers for the crimes of others?
Don't you think that whole system could be changed
to reward law abiding citizens with citizenship who don't commit crimes
and require restitution from those who violate the law and rights of others?

 

[SwimExpert]

I'm not a big fan of the death penalty. But "You can't execute him, it'll hurt" is a really fucking stupid argument.

 

[tinydancer]

What the hell are you talking about? Only two wins? How ignorant are you left wing whackos?

 

[tinydancer]

Here rdean. Read it and weep. Multiple wins. The Supremes have unanimously ruled against Obama many, many times.

Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012 National Review Online

 

[rdean]

WHO cares if that Boston bomber dies a painful death? He SHOULD die a painful death. He HAS earned a painful death.

Like your lungs?

 

[rdean]

Here rdean. Read it and weep. Multiple wins. The Supremes have unanimously ruled against Obama many, many times.

Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012 National Review Online

From your source, I love this one:

Then it unanimously tossed out a law establishing abortion-clinic “buffer zones” against pro-life protests

Did you know the Supreme Court has a buffer zone around it?

How many abortion workers and doctors have been killed? 17 have been shot at with at least 8 people killed.

How many Supreme Court Justices have been shot? Not sure, but a number have died in office. Mostly from old age. How come only they deserve protection?

 

[Claudette]

Yup and who gives a shit about how much pain those bastards are in as they kille em??

I'm sure those they killed suffered great pain and I'm sure the lefty idiots on this board could care less about that.

 

[whitehall]

It was the "caring" left that all but stopped electrocution and developed the injection method. All but hard core mainline drug abusers who have no surface veins left enjoy a powerful sedative that puts them into a deep sleep before the drug stops their heart. What more do you want? It should be noted that the liberal hypocrites in the Commonwealth of Mass. feel good about outlawing the death penalty but wait. When a monster like the Boston Marathon bomber is convicted they vote for the death penalty as long as the Feds pull the switch.

 

[Stephanie]

What the hell are you talking about? Only two wins? How ignorant are you left wing whackos?

Rdean has to be a robot. no human being thinks up all that stupidity. Well now that I think about it, it is rdeanie. lol

 

[The VOR]

What the hell are you talking about? Only two wins? How ignorant are you left wing whackos?

Rdean has to be a robot. no human being thinks up all that stupidity. Well now that I think about it, it is rdeanie. lol

You are definitely the authority when it comes to stupid, you illiterate, trailer park trash twat.

 

[SwimExpert]

Here rdean. Read it and weep. Multiple wins. The Supremes have unanimously ruled against Obama many, many times.

Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012 National Review Online

From your source, I love this one:

Then it unanimously tossed out a law establishing abortion-clinic “buffer zones” against pro-life protests

Did you know the Supreme Court has a buffer zone around it?

How many abortion workers and doctors have been killed? 17 have been shot at with at least 8 people killed.

How many Supreme Court Justices have been shot? Not sure, but a number have died in office. Mostly from old age. How come only they deserve protection?

Rdean, this is stupid, even for you. That's not a "buffer zone." That's part of the Supreme Court property, too.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What on Earth does the GOP have to do with the Supreme Court?