If the US Supreme Court is petitioned to grant a stay of execution, it
requires at least 5 of 9 justices to agree to the order. (Yeah yeah. I
know this is equity. It's a writ, not an order.)

Hoffman v. Westcott

In this case, there's no stay.

Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson wrote nothing. Neil Gorsuch wrote a brief dissent.

The prisoner awaiting execution is a Bhuddist. There is a tradition of meditative breathing at time of death that the method of execution to be
used -- asphyxiation by nitrogen gas -- would prevent.

There is a federal law, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act of 2000 (which narrowed religious protections of Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which was unconstitutional) applicable to state
prisons if they accept federal monies. The free exercise of religion
rights of prisoners must not be substantially burdened, and that "very
strict scrutiny" (it's the Wikipedia summary and not a level of judicial
review I've ever heard of) would be applied to constitutional review of
the statute in question.

Opinions on religion make me tear my hair out. The First Amendment has
not one but two religion clauses: the Establishment clause and Free
Exercise of Religion clause. Sometimes when the government does or does
not do something affecting religion, an analysis under each clause must
be performed. Is the government giving an unfair benefit or advantage to
one religion and not others in accomodating religious exercise? Which
clause does it violate, either, neither, or both?

The other thing that makes me tear my hair out is that the plaintiff is
allowed to claim being affected by a substantial burden on free exercise
of religion without the court considering whether his beliefs are
sincerely held. Great. There's no finding on that. So how is the strict scrutiny review applied without considering sincerity?

The Internal Revenue Act of 1954 (and successors) is a substantial
burden on the free exercise of my religion in which I am not subject to
tax on my income. I've asserted it. The judge cannot consider whether my
belief is sincerely held or if it's part of any religion he's ever heard
of. I just win, right?

Certain Scalia opinions were considered to be sloppily written for
failure to make a bright line distinction in his reasoning about which
clause applied, and often, he was accused of applying the wrong one.

Here we have Neil Gorsuch, who rarely agrees to stays of execution,
raising his concern in dissent, that the trial court failed to
adequately consider the prisoner's free exercise of religion. The trial
court made a finding that the execution wouldn't interfere with the
breathing required by faith. Gorsuch's objection was that the trial
court wasn't supposed to make a judgment on the sincerity of belief.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/justices-allow-louisiana-to-execute-buddhist-over-religious-freedom-claim/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mar 19, 2025 at 11:55:53 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

If the US Supreme Court is petitioned to grant a stay of execution, it requires at least 5 of 9 justices to agree to the order. (Yeah yeah. I
know this is equity. It's a writ, not an order.)

Hoffman v. Westcott

In this case, there's no stay.

Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson wrote nothing. Neil Gorsuch wrote a brief dissent.

The prisoner awaiting execution is a Bhuddist. There is a tradition of meditative breathing at time of death that the method of execution to be
used -- asphyxiation by nitrogen gas -- would prevent.

I find this hard to believe since it would imply that all Buddhists can anticipate their time of death such that an entire tradition can built around the anticipation of it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Mar 19, 2025 at 11:55:53 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

If the US Supreme Court is petitioned to grant a stay of execution, it >>requires at least 5 of 9 justices to agree to the order. (Yeah yeah. I
know this is equity. It's a writ, not an order.)

Hoffman v. Westcott

In this case, there's no stay.

Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson wrote nothing. Neil Gorsuch wrote a brief >>dissent.

The prisoner awaiting execution is a Bhuddist. There is a tradition of >>meditative breathing at time of death that the method of execution to be >>used -- asphyxiation by nitrogen gas -- would prevent.

I find this hard to believe since it would imply that all Buddhists can >anticipate their time of death such that an entire tradition can built around >the anticipation of it.

It's unconstitutional for you to question the sincerity of a religious
tenet! Besides, what does religion have to do with logic?

In this case, as there's a death warrant, the time of execution is known. Cannot the prisoner meditate till no longer able to once the gas has
been turned on? One is not likely to be conscious with many natural
deaths anyway.

None of it makes sense.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/19/2025 3:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 19, 2025 at 11:55:53 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

If the US Supreme Court is petitioned to grant a stay of execution, it
requires at least 5 of 9 justices to agree to the order. (Yeah yeah. I
know this is equity. It's a writ, not an order.)

Hoffman v. Westcott

In this case, there's no stay.

Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson wrote nothing. Neil Gorsuch wrote a brief
dissent.

The prisoner awaiting execution is a Bhuddist. There is a tradition of
meditative breathing at time of death that the method of execution to be
used -- asphyxiation by nitrogen gas -- would prevent.

I find this hard to believe since it would imply that all Buddhists can anticipate their time of death such that an entire tradition can built around the anticipation of it.

Asphyxiation seems no more "preventive" than, say, beheading. I.e.,
with either, you can breathe meditatively right up until...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-03-19 2:55 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

If the US Supreme Court is petitioned to grant a stay of execution, it requires at least 5 of 9 justices to agree to the order. (Yeah yeah. I
know this is equity. It's a writ, not an order.)

Hoffman v. Westcott

In this case, there's no stay.

Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson wrote nothing. Neil Gorsuch wrote a brief dissent.

The prisoner awaiting execution is a Bhuddist. There is a tradition of meditative breathing at time of death that the method of execution to be
used -- asphyxiation by nitrogen gas -- would prevent.

There is a federal law, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act of 2000 (which narrowed religious protections of Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which was unconstitutional) applicable to state prisons if they accept federal monies. The free exercise of religion
rights of prisoners must not be substantially burdened, and that "very
strict scrutiny" (it's the Wikipedia summary and not a level of judicial review I've ever heard of) would be applied to constitutional review of
the statute in question.

Opinions on religion make me tear my hair out. The First Amendment has
not one but two religion clauses: the Establishment clause and Free
Exercise of Religion clause. Sometimes when the government does or does
not do something affecting religion, an analysis under each clause must
be performed. Is the government giving an unfair benefit or advantage to
one religion and not others in accomodating religious exercise? Which
clause does it violate, either, neither, or both?

The other thing that makes me tear my hair out is that the plaintiff is allowed to claim being affected by a substantial burden on free exercise
of religion without the court considering whether his beliefs are
sincerely held. Great. There's no finding on that. So how is the strict scrutiny review applied without considering sincerity?

The Internal Revenue Act of 1954 (and successors) is a substantial
burden on the free exercise of my religion in which I am not subject to
tax on my income. I've asserted it. The judge cannot consider whether my belief is sincerely held or if it's part of any religion he's ever heard
of. I just win, right?

Certain Scalia opinions were considered to be sloppily written for
failure to make a bright line distinction in his reasoning about which
clause applied, and often, he was accused of applying the wrong one.

Here we have Neil Gorsuch, who rarely agrees to stays of execution,
raising his concern in dissent, that the trial court failed to
adequately consider the prisoner's free exercise of religion. The trial
court made a finding that the execution wouldn't interfere with the
breathing required by faith. Gorsuch's objection was that the trial
court wasn't supposed to make a judgment on the sincerity of belief.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/justices-allow-louisiana-to-execute-buddhist-over-religious-freedom-claim/

Does Buddhism specifically insist that the state has to provide oxygen
at sufficient pressure until a practitioner has died? The reason I ask
is that my understanding of this execution technique is that the
prisoner keeps breathing throughout: he just isn't getting any oxygen
once the gas starts pumping through the mask.

And yes, I was being facetious. I don't know a lot about Buddhism but
I'd be utterly gobsmacked if this ancient religion had a provision about
oxygen since the religion must predate the discovery of oxygen by
centuries. I'd be even more surprised if it required the state to supply
oxygen to anyone under any circumstances let alone an execution.

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)