Since the state was not doing that as some form of punishment for a crime, apparently they didn't think it was in the scope of their authority.
I think it's cruel and unusual way to die, but it's a stretch to say that she had been "sentenced' to it for a crime.
Word games like that don't interest me BTW.
I'm flabbergasted.
I think it's cruel and unusual way to die, but it's a stretch to say that she had been "sentenced' to it for a crime.
So, in your view it is not a violation of the Constituion to starve and dehydrate an innocent woman to death but it is cruel and unusual to sentence a murderer to death? Not all murderers mind you, each case should be decided on it's own merits. I simply don't understand that logic.
Word games like that don't interest me BTW.
It's not a word game, it's an argument that the SCOTUS is not an objective body. One need only look at Terry Schiavo, abortion and this holding to know that. The APA says that girls under the age of consent can make decisions regarding the taking of human life without parental advice or consent and in the same breath they contend that girls and boys under the age of 18 can not know the impact of killing another human being.
And SCOTUS agrees with them in both cases!
It is hypocrisy on it's face.