Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojkt(Posted by ScottC, but discovered and written by lmsinca)
I was going to attempt a You Tube video here of the World’s scariest roller coaster, but I suffered a tech fail. (tech fail resolved – SC). A few of us had a discussion a week or so ago comparing the economy to a roller coaster ride so here ‘ya go. I thought of Ashot also, waiting for baby ashot to show up, as riding an emotional roller coaster. I hope we hear from him soon.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Oregon Governor Says He Will Block ExecutionsBy WILLIAM YARDLEYPublished: November 22, 2011 "Gov. John Kitzhaber of Oregon on Tuesday said he would halt the execution of a death row inmate scheduled for next month and that he would allow no more executions in the state during his time in office. “It is time for Oregon to consider a different approach,” Gov. Kitzhaber, a Democrat elected last fall, said in remarks delivered in Salem on Tuesday afternoon. “I refuse to be a part of this compromised and inequitable system any longer; and I will not allow further executions while I am governor.” ""The governor, a physician who served two previous terms, from 1995 to 2003, noted that he had allowed the two previous executions to go forward under his watch.“They were the most agonizing and difficult decisions I have made as governor and I have revisited and questioned them over and over again during the past 14 years,” Gov. Kitzhaber said. “I do not believe that those executions made us safer; and certainly they did not make us nobler as a society. And I simply cannot participate once again in something I believe to be morally wrong.” "Translation: I refuse to enforce the law while I am governor, but neither will I resign, even though I view enforcing this law as morally wrong.
LikeLike
Thanks scott, I would love to take that ride.
LikeLike
WWWWHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!Looks way more fun than being pushed down Lombard Street in San Fran.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWnff376PEI
LikeLike
Scott wrote, on the prior thread…"What I object to is casting it as a "free market" decision."The context was, loosely, employment & income taxes influence on one's employment decisions.But what I've been wondering is whether this mythical free market exists – one on which we might model our own markets, to varying degrees?
LikeLike
Awesome coaster. Now must visit Austria.jnc4p wrote "Translation: I refuse to enforce the law while I am governor, but neither will I resign, even though I view enforcing this law as morally wrong."Does the OR gov not have the authority to stay executions?
LikeLike
bsimon:But what I've been wondering is whether this mythical free market existsNo, a mythical free market does not exist. By definition.
LikeLike
No, a mythical free market does not exist. By definition.Rimshot!
LikeLike
Must you?
LikeLike
Ask a facetious question, get a facetious answer.
LikeLike
jnc: A Republican governor did it first.George Homer Ryan, Sr. (born February 24, 1934, in Maquoketa, Iowa) was the 39th Governor of the U.S. state of Illinois from 1999 until 2003. He is a member of the Republican Party. Ryan became nationally known when in 2000 he imposed a moratorium on executions and "raised the national debate on capital punishment".[5] (Wikipedia)I wouldn't be surprised if we see more governors from both parties doing this. . . which would seem to make it an even more capricious punishment and probably land it in front of SCOTUS again. . .
LikeLike
Mich:…and probably land it in front of SCOTUS again.You may be right, but it is hard to understand why it should. Whether or not capital punishment is good policy may be debatable, but whether or not it is constitutional is not. It clearly is constitutional.
LikeLike
I'll take it as a 'no', as it is with dreamutopian ideals – the impossible dream.
LikeLike
Scott: What I'm thinking (as a person who isn't a lawyer) is that if governors start deciding willy-nilly whether or not they'll enforce prior sentencings, the punishment becomes highly capricious. Which might make in cruel and unusual.But, then, I'm not a lawyer. . .
LikeLike
"bsimon said… jnc4p wrote "Translation: I refuse to enforce the law while I am governor, but neither will I resign, even though I view enforcing this law as morally wrong."Does the OR gov not have the authority to stay executions? "He does, and also to commute if he finds extenuating circumstances or other factors that he can take into account when granting clemency. Had he done that, it would be non-controversial. Instead, he's arguing that the law itself is immoral and therefore he won't enforce it, which I would argue violates his oath of office. I believe he specifically did not commute the sentence, but only stayed it and is advocating that the legislature change the law."Michigoose said… jnc: A Republican governor did it first.jnc: A Republican governor did it first.George Homer Ryan, Sr. (born February 24, 1934, in Maquoketa, Iowa) was the 39th Governor of the U.S. state of Illinois from 1999 until 2003. He is a member of the Republican Party. Ryan became nationally known when in 2000 he imposed a moratorium on executions and "raised the national debate on capital punishment".[5] (Wikipedia)I wouldn't be surprised if we see more governors from both parties doing this. . . which would seem to make it an even more capricious punishment and probably land it in front of SCOTUS again. . . "Ryan's argument was different than Kitzhaber in that he argued that there were significant flaws in the process used to convict people of capital punishment in Illinois such that he couldn't be reasonably certain that the convicted people were in fact guilty. Guilt isn't in question in Kitzhaber's decision as the person convicted isn't disputing that. Rather Kitzhaber feels justified to substitute his personal moral judgment for the law. One way to look at this is to consider the same approach in another context:I.e. Supposed Kitzhaber decided that enforcing a law that made gay marriage legal offended him morally, and therefore he was going to block all new marriage licenses being issued for same sex couples, regardless of what the law said.My argument is that as the executive tasked with enforcing the laws as written, if he is faced with this dilemma ("And I simply cannot participate once again in something I believe to be morally wrong.”), then he should resign.You start down the road of the executive (or the judiciary) replacing their own moral judgment for what the law actually says and you are not likely to like where you end up.
LikeLike