• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justice Elena Kagan's first vote is against an execution

As previously mentioned, there's the possibility that it doesn't kill them, and instead leaves them in horrendous pain and severe brain damage. I guess you'd have to read the actual trial documents to know for sure, but to assume someone's reasoning is moronic before knowing their reasoning at all is a bit silly in a court-of-law context. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a decision and thought "Wait, what the hell?" only then to read the supporting argument and go "Ooohhh... hadn't thought of that."

A couple of rounds in the cranium will take care of that.
 
Why is being against the death penalty a 'liberal' stance? What? No Christian Conservatives against the death penalty?
 
I am conducting a study, I'm going around to every thread seeing if they all eventually melt into a conservative/republican vs liberal/democrat fight. This one hasn't melted yet, per se, but I see the potential after just reading the first page of post.

how many threads are you going to spam this statement on ?
 
But it is silly to claim she is "voting the liberal line" when she has only voted once. Her record suggest there will be occasions when she may break with the liberals on the court. However, no one has really claimed she is anything other than a liberal. A moderate liberal probably, but still a liberal.

When she doesn't vote the Liberal line, you'll be the first to post it. Yes?
 
If the drugs weren't safe to ... if they weren't effective it might lead to his... oh screw it. I can't even make it sound sillier than it already is. Can't we dust off the "chair" and use that or is that dangerous to use too?

The problem was that they were using imported drugs (from the UK), which we all know from prior debate, are vastly inferior to US drugs. Its one thing to be a condemned man, but at least give the man quality drugs...
 
The problem was that they were using imported drugs (from the UK), which we all know from prior debate, are vastly inferior to US drugs. Its one thing to be a condemned man, but at least give the man quality drugs...

Well, at this very second, Landrigan is drawing flies. So, it appears the 9th Circus' concerns were unwarranted.
 
The drug does not cause brain damage, but autopsy studies have revealed that there are commonly insufficient amounts in the tissue to guarantee complete anaesthesia. This in turn raises the prospect of someone being conscious and aware when they are paralysed with the pancuronium, then their cardiac function is arrested with potassium chloride. The process usually takes 10 minutes, but can last 30 to 40.




so what?







............
 
Back
Top Bottom