Progress! - Granite Grok

Progress!

Stay with me on this one.

The weirdo/wife-murderer in a Massachusetts prison is supposedly going to get a sex realignment/mutilation job at the expense of taxpayers – not paid for by Hollywood , Harvard, or Federal judges, who cheer on this type of thing, and who, by the way, have the extra cash.

Rush calls the opposite of what this “surgical operation/mutilation” is, an “addadicktome” and that is probably the best description. Thanks Rush!

The names of the screwball Federal judges is not in this story – because they never are. But here is the so-called news article about this latest assault on decency:

I like to read the court decisions in English as opposed to how they are interpreted by the media and liberal lawyers.

Here is a key phrase or two:

U.S. Supreme Court has ruled courts “must not shrink from their obligation to enforce the constitutional rights of all persons, including prisoners,” (according to the Boston Globe).

 “And receiving medically necessary treatment is one of those rights, even if that treatment strikes some as odd or unorthodox,” the court reportedly said.

Now I understand that the language the court used was designed to fit the case at hand, and more like it, but I have interpreted it another way. Doesn’t the court often require a convicted felon to make restitution? Yes, they do — in case you don’t know that.

My interpretation of “even if that treatment strikes some as odd or unorthodox,” is thus: A convicted murderer should pay society, we all love society, right, back for his crimes and I humbly suggest and “Eye for an Eye” type of restitution.

You murder a person by taking away his or her life and you pay society back incrementally.

Here is my plan:

First, we find a sick person, in society, who needs one of your murderer kidneys – gone!

You have now paid back one installment to society.

Then do an eye, bone marrow, whatever, until there is nothing left.

That would not technically be capital punishment. We can call it capital punishment and it would certainly NOT be cruel or unusual.  It would be Constitutional, starting with this recent ruling under, odd or unorthodox!

In my book “odd or unorthodox” trumps “cruel and unusual” every time.

Just as with Roe v. Wade, Woody Allen “jumping” his own daughters, and Bill Clinton assaulting unsuspecting women, it may take some getting used to – but Hey, its 2014!

Let’s help society and empty those prisons.

>