{"id":17176,"date":"2015-11-04T14:10:39","date_gmt":"2015-11-04T22:10:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=17176"},"modified":"2015-11-04T14:10:39","modified_gmt":"2015-11-04T22:10:39","slug":"on-the-edge1142015","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2015\/11\/04\/on-the-edge1142015\/","title":{"rendered":"On the Edge–11\/4\/2015"},"content":{"rendered":"

There is little personal news.  If my wounds keep healing as they should, I\u2019ll go back to Vibra  on Friday afternoon.  The pain should be more manageable by then.<\/font><\/p>\n

Jig Zone Puzzle<\/strong>:<\/font><\/p>\n

I cannot do today\u2019s puzzle (average 6:26).  To do it click here<\/a>.  How did you do?<\/font><\/p>\n

Short Takes<\/strong>:<\/font><\/p>\n

From NY Times<\/a>: <\/font>In the long legal struggle against the death penalty, the future has in some ways never looked brighter.<\/p>\n

In a passionate dissent<\/a> in June, Justice Stephen G. Breyer invited a major challenge to the constitutionality of capital punishment. This fall, Justice Antonin Scalia all but<\/a> predicted<\/a> that the court\u2019s more liberal justices would strike down the death penalty.<\/p>\n

But lawyers and activists opposed to the death penalty, acutely conscious of what is at stake, are bitterly divided about how to proceed. Some say it is imperative to bring a major case to the court as soon as practicable. Others <\/p>\n

\u201cIf you don\u2019t go now, there\u2019s a real possibility you have blood on your hands,\u201d said Robert J. Smith, a fellow at the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute of Harvard Law School. His scholarship<\/a> was cited in Justice Breyer\u2019s dissent<\/a> from a decision upholding the use of an execution drug that three death row inmates argued risked causing excruciating pain.<\/p>\n

worry that haste may result in a losing decision that could entrench capital punishment for years.<\/p>\n

A dissent by Justice Stephen G. Breyer in June was seen as inviting a death penalty challenge. Credit Damon Winter\/The New York Times <\/p>\n

But others are wary. \u201cThere are reasons to be cautious about pushing the court to a decision too early,\u201d said Jordan M. Steiker, a law professor at the University of Texas.<\/p>\n

The divide is partly generational. Many veteran litigators have suffered stinging setbacks in the Supreme Court, and they favor an incremental strategy. They would continue to chip away at the death penalty in the courts, seek state-by-state abolition and try to move public opinion.<\/p>\n

Some younger lawyers and activists urge a bolder course: to ask the Supreme Court to end capital punishment nationwide right away.<\/p>\n

As much as I believe hat the death penalty is state sponsored murder that must be outlawed, I do not trust the Fascist Five Injustices of SCROTUS (Republican Constitutional VD) to do it. We need an incremental approach as long as the Republican Reich controls the court.<\/font><\/p>\n

From Daily Kos<\/a>: <\/font>This morning Scarborough appeared to have a severe cognitive collapse during a segment about the Republican Party’s debate-o-phobia (video below). Like most of his ideological allies, he is suffering from the delusion that the American media, owned by a handful of megalithic, multinational corporations, is dominated by liberals. Scarborough set off on a rant about the absence of conservatives on nightly news programs, Sunday shows, and in the executive suites. He badgered his guests to come up with examples of Republicans in those roles, and insisted that they could not do it.<\/p>\n

Barf Bag Alert!!<\/font><\/strong><\/p>\n