Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[smirk]

Keep in mind though - this Reid-McConnell thing is still pretty convoluted, seeing as how they can only exert indirect influence on the House. Lotta vague hopefulness in there.

Manchin said the goal was to get at least 65 Senate votes -- which would mean 10 or more from Republicans -- to help Speaker John Boehner generate GOP backing in the House despite certain opposition from the tea party conservative wing.

So if the TP still has enough control over Boehner, it's sunk. Amazing how this all still turns on a pivot behind that orange-tinted visage.

[Nadaka]

I'm pretty sure they have been defanged in the eyes of most of the rest of the country, they're just too crazy to notice the pain of that operation .

You still have faith in humanity. I can't imagine why.

[misko27]

I must remind you that as head of the Republican Senate, McConnell is more then enough to not have a stick shook at him.


Regardless, even Ted Cruz as boisterously announced he would vote against it procedually; given him, that's amazing.

[Descan]

A reminder that the state-level American government is still up and running, this time in Alabama: A bill to castrate molesters over the age of 21, with the convicted footing 100% of the bill.

For things like this, I have a quick litmus test for whether I feel it goes too far or not.

"How would you feel if the accused turned out to be innocent, and you had carried out this punishment already?"

It's what prevents me from approving of the death penalty, or of this. In fact, it has lead me towards wanting rehabilitation over punishment, and that locking someone away is an evil. Sometimes a necessary evil, not everyone can be rehabilitated, but something being necessary does not prevent it from also being evil. Necessity does not make something good, it makes something necessary.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Fails the 8th Amendment pretty spectacularly.

[Descan]

Well, like the article mentions, 8 other states also have (chemical) castration on their criminal books. California and Texas among them.

[Max White]

A reminder that the state-level American government is still up and running, this time in Alabama: A bill to castrate molesters over the age of 21, with the convicted footing 100% of the bill.

There is no way that would ever make it into law, surly. It just wouldn't happen. It looks like a group of uninformed parents got together and made some sort of partition and made their local rep present it.

[lue]

A reminder that the state-level American government is still up and running, this time in Alabama: A bill to castrate molesters over the age of 21, with the convicted footing 100% of the bill.

For things like this, I have a quick litmus test for whether I feel it goes too far or not.

"How would you feel if the accused turned out to be innocent, and you had carried out this punishment already?"

It's what prevents me from approving of the death penalty, or of this. In fact, it has lead me towards wanting rehabilitation over punishment, and that locking someone away is an evil. Sometimes a necessary evil, not everyone can be rehabilitated, but something being necessary does not prevent it from also being evil. Necessity does not make something good, it makes something necessary.

But what about the molesters who kept themselves from doing even more molestation in the interests of not impregnating their victims? Joking aside, my actual concern with the bill is that

• Like Descan said, it's not something I'm comfortable actually doing, especially if "oops, you're actually innocent. Well, um... good luck!" is what happens.
• This has the unfortunate side effect of completely ignoring the possibility of a female perpetrator of such crimes, which is not a good thing.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well, like the article mentions, 8 other states also have (chemical) castration on their criminal books. California and Texas among them.

I think it would probably be easier to make a case for surgical castration being cruel and unusual compared to chemical castration.

A reminder that the state-level American government is still up and running, this time in Alabama: A bill to castrate molesters over the age of 21, with the convicted footing 100% of the bill.

There is no way that would ever make it into law, surly. It just wouldn't happen. It looks like a group of uninformed parents got together and made some sort of partition and made their local rep present it.

Oh no, it will almost certainly become law. There's few crimes that get people more riled up, and few criminals less sympathetic.

[Max White]

This has the unfortunate side effect of completely ignoring the possibility of a female perpetrator of such crimes, which is not a good thing.

You can chemically castrate women, so gender bias isn't really an issue here. The general immorality of it for anybody is.

Oh no, it will almost certainly become law. There's few crimes that get people more riled up, and few criminals less sympathetic.

Even so, somewhere out there there has to be a lawyer sitting, looking over this shit and thinking "Nope, not even legit. Don't care, can't pass it! Cry me a river because law is law."

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There isn't anything preventing them from passing it. A constitutional challenge can only come after it is law.

[SealyStar]

A reminder that the state-level American government is still up and running, this time in Alabama: A bill to castrate molesters over the age of 21, with the convicted footing 100% of the bill.

For things like this, I have a quick litmus test for whether I feel it goes too far or not.

"How would you feel if the accused turned out to be innocent, and you had carried out this punishment already?"

It's what prevents me from approving of the death penalty, or of this. In fact, it has lead me towards wanting rehabilitation over punishment, and that locking someone away is an evil. Sometimes a necessary evil, not everyone can be rehabilitated, but something being necessary does not prevent it from also being evil. Necessity does not make something good, it makes something necessary.

Judging from Michael Jackson's voice, I figured this was already in place in California.

[lue]

This has the unfortunate side effect of completely ignoring the possibility of a female perpetrator of such crimes, which is not a good thing.

You can chemically castrate women, so gender bias isn't really an issue here. The general immorality of it for anybody is.

Yeah, I did a quick check to make sure before posting. Although it is possible, I would argue that the introducers of the bill are almost certainly thinking about men, and are almost certainly concerned about the perpetrator inflicting unwanted pregnancy, rather than concerned the victims being forced to inflict said pregnancy.

Of course, we need to actually read the bill to see what their definition of castration is.

[misko27]

Well, like the article mentions, 8 other states also have (chemical) castration on their criminal books. California and Texas among them.

Yeah, and the Three-Fifths Compromise is still in effect. American Laws have no expiration date, and they can remain on the books long after they either become irrelevant or cease to be enforced. For Example, while Federal Law has one set of rules regarding Marijuana, they have decided not to enforce them in states where recreational use is legal, effectively annulling it for those areas.

[lue]

Dawn of
The Second Day
-48 Hours Remain-

Accompanying music. (didn't post first day music because it didn't come to mind, so here it is for comparison.)

Seems like the deal in the Senate is still forming. Fingers crossed.

Well, like the article mentions, 8 other states also have (chemical) castration on their criminal books. California and Texas among them.

Yeah, and the Three-Fifths Compromise is still in effect. American Laws have no expiration date, and they can remain on the books long after they either become irrelevant or cease to be enforced. For Example, while Federal Law has one set of rules regarding Marijuana, they have decided not to enforce them in states where recreational use is legal, effectively annulling it for those areas.

How about a clean-up amendment to get rid of that part of the Constitution, just for clarity's sake?

EDIT: I think in general it's an alien concept to many that a governing body can decide to just not pay attention to some of its rules, and if no-one particularly cares about that rule then it stops mattering.

And while my mind's on it, a case for American Exceptionalism℠: only America can turn a fraction into a political insult.