Latest
Supreme Court: Death row inmates may be entitled to touch, prayer in moments before execution
[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Thursday indicated that states can’t bar a death row inmate from making physical contact with a spiritual adviser in the moments before their execution, the latest victory for those seeking to bolster protections for religious freedom.
John Ramirez, convicted of a 2004 murder at a convenience store, sued Texas officials over a policy that prohibits his pastor from placing his hands on him and praying aloud at his execution. Texas accused Ramirez of raising the issue only to delay his sentence.
In an 8-1 opinion, the Supreme Court said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred when it denied Ramirez’s stay of execution and it handed the case back to lower courts for further consideration. Although the court was ruling only on procedural questions, the decision will likely require states to revisit their execution policies.
“Ramirez seeks to have his pastor lay hands on him and pray over him during the execution,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court’s majority. “Both are traditional forms of religious exercise.”
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in the case, writing that Congress and states approved “potent” tools to protect religious freedom but that, “like any tool, it can be wielded abusively. And few have a greater incentive to do so than death-row inmates.”
Texas lawyers told the court the state has an interest in limiting interaction between an inmate and adviser to ensure the death sentence is carried out smoothly. Even though states have allowed contact and prayer in the past without incident – a point Ramirez’s attorney raised – Texas said it must consider the potential for a botched execution.
Pastor:Supreme Court grapples with prayer, touch in execution chamber
Arguments:Supreme Court wrestles with religious freedom, death penalty
The nation’s highest court has generally been reluctant to stop executions in response to what are often eleventh-hour appeals from inmates. But the proceedings took a dramatic turn in the Ramirez case: Not only did the justices halt his execution, the court plucked the case off its emergency docket in September and scheduled it for a more formal review.
After more than 90 minutes of argument in early November, it wasn’t clear which way the court was leaning. Several conservative justices worried that a decision for Ramirez would prompt a flood of other challenges to execution policies based on religious grounds. But Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, nominated by President Donald Trump, also ruminated about other areas where prison officials might infringe on religious rights.
Roberts wrote that the court would have to address those challenges as they came.
Ramirez, 37, fatally stabbed Pablo Castro, a convenience store clerk, in 2004. He and two women were looking for drug money when they confronted Castro outside the store. According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Ramirez beat and kicked Castro and stabbed him 29 times. The three left with $1.25.
Ramirez was arrested four years later at the Texas-Mexico border.
A federal district court in Texas and the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit had denied Ramirez’s request.
The case followed a series of Supreme Court rulings dealing with religion in the execution chamber. In 2019, the court was criticized for refusing to block the execution of a Muslim man in Alabama who was denied an imam – even though the state permitted Christian chaplains to attend executions. A month later, a 7-2 majority halted the execution of a Texas prisoner who initially wasn’t permitted to have a Buddhist spiritual adviser at his side during his execution.
Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that once a state permits a religious adviser of one denomination, such as a Christian preacher, it can’t exclude rabbis, imams and other advisers. The result was that Texas and Alabama barred all spiritual advisers from the execution chamber. But in February, a majority of court that included Barrett and the court’s three liberal justices ruled for an Alabama inmate who sued to have a pastor at his execution.
“Prison security is, of course, a compelling state interest,” Associate Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a concurring opinion in that case. “But past practice, in Alabama and elsewhere, shows that a prison may ensure security without barring all clergy members from the execution chamber.”
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
That decision failed to pay off, however, with the Red Devils sacking Moyes after just 10 months in charge.
After the current West Ham boss came Van Gaal, who arrived with big things expected due to his past success at the likes of Barcelona and Ajax.
Giggs was hoping to get the Red Devils job himself, which was why he stayed, but both ended up leaving nearly six years ago.
When Jose Mourinho took over, he opted to maintain his close relationship with Rui Faria – who had previously worked under him at clubs such as Real Madrid and Chelsea.
Fair departed in the summer of 2018, though, with Michael Carrick then given a place on Mourinho’s bench.
Carrick stayed to work under Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, with the Norwegian also regularly picking up the thoughts of Phelan and Kieran McKenna throughout his spell in the dugout.
Want the latest football news? Join our brand new Facebook group by clicking here
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
“Though they’re commonly used to treat different forms of heart disease, beta-blockers can significantly reduce HDL levels.”
Among the beta-blockers that cause this are Corgard (nadolol), Inderal (propranolol), Tenormin (atenolol), Zebeta (bisoprolol).
These drugs are widely used in the treatment of angina, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, heart attack and high blood pressure.
But despite concerns about their effect on cholesterol, scientists stress that the benefits of beta-blockers far outweigh the risks.
VeryWell Health adds: “If your beta-blocker affects your cholesterol significantly, your doctor may lower your dose or switch you to a different medication.”
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
However, after a four-hour meeting between race officials and the teams, it was confirmed the race would go ahead despite the attack. It had been reported that a number of the competing drivers were concerned for their safety following the nearby explosion.
Despite this, an agreement was finally reached to race at 2:30am local time, after team chiefs left the lengthy meeting to confirm: “We will be racing.” A statement from Formula 1 confirmed Sunday’s race would go ahead as planned. It read: “Formula 1 has been in close contact with the relevant authorities following the situation that took place today. The authorities have confirmed that the event can continue as planned and we will remain in close contact with them and all the teams and closely monitor the situation.”
Unsurprisingly, there were a number of mixed views on whether the race should go ahead, and this is clearly apparent in the Red Bull setup. This comes after advisor Helmut Marko revealed that drivers Verstappen and Perez are not on the same page when it comes to racing.
JUST IN: F1 drivers ‘had concerns’ about Saudi Arabia GP as new details emerge after missile attack
On the issue, Marko told Sky Germany: “Max is a bit more relaxed about it. Perez is a little bit scared, but when you live in Mexico City there’s not much more security. We have the pandemic, we have the war in Europe and now we have a missile attack 20 kilometres away. This is no longer normal or pleasant.”
Ahead of tomorrow’s race though, the Austrian advisor is firmly on the side of Verstappen and the race officials, supporting the idea of the race taking place. He commented: “I really think it’s the right thing to do. As I said, these drone attacks are common, I think. They have a very good defence system. Why this one didn’t work remains to be seen. It’s not the first drone, after all. But it’s the first one to strike on such a scale.”
The attack took place during Friday’s first practice session, and it was Red Bull’s star man Verstappen who was one of the first to realise something was wrong after reporting on his team radio that he could ‘smell burning’. Initially, the Dutchman thought the smell was coming from either his or one of his rival’s cars, however it then became clear that an explosion had taken place just a few miles from the track.
Giving an insight into Verstappen’s initial worries, Marko said: “Max radioed us, he thought his car had caught fire because there was an intense burning smell. We were informed a drone had been sent from Yemen. The Saudis have a defence system and for some reason the drone was not intercepted.”
[ad_2]
Benefits of Assisted Living
What Dinosaur has 500 Teeth? – Racist meme of 2022
Bottled and Jarred Packaged Goods – Uses, Types and Pros
Winter Olympics recap: Jessie Diggins wins Team USA's final medal, Finland wins men's hockey gold
Presidents' Day furniture deals are here—save big at Wayfair, Target, Macy's and West Elm
Best supplements: Two daily pills shown to lower cholesterol levels by up to 30 percent
-
Travel3 months ago
Winter Olympics recap: Jessie Diggins wins Team USA's final medal, Finland wins men's hockey gold
-
Travel3 months ago
Presidents' Day furniture deals are here—save big at Wayfair, Target, Macy's and West Elm
-
Latest3 months ago
Best supplements: Two daily pills shown to lower cholesterol levels by up to 30 percent
-
Latest3 months agoMichigan basketball coach Juwan Howard strikes Wisconsin assistant at end of loss
-
Politics3 months ago'Invasion has already begun!' Sajid Javid warns Russia to face sanction fury from UK
-
Tech3 months agoNew Soundboard Review: Pricing is Not Always the Only Criteria
-
Tech3 months agoDiscover these Waterproof and Rugged Smartphones that Go on Sale
-
Politics3 months agoThings You Didn’t Know About the American Past Politicians