I am dumbfounded by Alito's and Roberts' use of the terms "Abolitionists"  and "Guerilla Warfare" during the death penalty case arguments at SCOTUS. Correct me if there are technical flaws in my reporting of the facts as I am in close proximity to the Red River and am distracted by some foreigners from pharmaceutical companies in Denmark who are camped out nearby and planning their next act of sabotage either in Texas or Oklahoma and as an innocent bystander I don't want to be caught in a crossfire between Danish terrorists (let's just be honest here) who previously did so but now have surreptitiously quit manufacturing an effective sedative not intended in a protocol of state-sponsored execution and the Texas Department of Public Safety---or for that matter, between the Oklahoma National Guard and some 19th century, exhumed, Unitarian Ministers from New England who are hiding in my barn who recently smuggled execution drugs out of Oklahoma via an underground network of pacifist Fed Ex drivers.  

I admit I can't completely defend my use of the term "jingoists" but like the justices I was forthrightly searching for a more concise label for the complex circumstances of persons who  "Present traits inherent in S/M defense mechanisms."  I believe the original definition of S/M (by the way, I'm o.k with the current sexual interpretation of S/M with respect to these two smirking authoritarian bench warmers) was along the line of "sucks up to authority above, and dishes it out to those down below"---and we are witnessing the end behavior of those who in fact have no authority above them.

So what then? A double dose of authoritarianism to those who are down on their knees? And will the prelates of SCOTUS permit abolitionists and guerilla warfarists to intervene and save those who do not wish to die in agony---not on their watch they won't.

Actually, psychological analysis is the kindest treatment of Roberts' and Alito's unfortunate use of language. The alternative explanations are much worse. Willful distortion? Dog Whistling?

Guerilla warfare---what, as in that monkey wrench gang, the European drug manufacturers?

Abolitionists?  Those bad people who upset the status quo?

It may come as no surprise that I am against the death penalty.  If there is to be even one innocent person wrongly convicted of murder and executed, the death penalty should be abolished.

Although surveys might conflict it is safe to say that about half the people are now against the death penalty---about 60 per cent if the question is phrased in the context of alternative punishments for murder.

The country is changing, innocents released might have been wrongly executed if it weren't for DNA tests. And even the vaunted FBI Forensics Lab is bogus. Certain pre-execution sedatives are not available and replacements are questionable as to cruelty. And in this context, the justices revert to prejudicial and unfounded labels as if they are in a game. Well, shame on the justices.