Posted on 1/13/2006, 8:00:42 PM by new yorker 77
WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court reinstated a California inmate’s death sentence on Wednesday, the first 5-4 vote under newly installed Chief Justice John Roberts.
Justices overturned an appeals court ruling that declared Ronald Sanders’ sentence unconstitutional. Sanders was put on death row in the 1982 killing of a woman during a drug-related robbery in Bakersfield, Calif.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the ruling, the court’s first death penalty decision since Roberts replaced Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist last fall.
The case presented a technical question for the court involving jurors’ consideration of invalid aggravating factors.
Special circumstances used by prosecutors in their case against Sanders — that the crime was committed during a burglary and was cruel or heinous — were later found invalid.
California argued that Sanders would have been sentenced to death even without those arguments. The Supreme Court’s five conservative members agreed.
“The erroneous factor could not have ‘skewed’ the sentence, and no constitutional violation occurred,” Scalia wrote in an opinion joined by Roberts, retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said “this decision is more likely to complicate than to clarify our capital sentencing jurisprudence.”
Also disagreeing with the decision were Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, although their reasons were varied.
In a lengthy dissent, Breyer said the court’s finding could “deprive a defendant of a fair and reliable sentencing proceeding.”
The case is Brown v. Sanders, 04-980.
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
© 2006 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10804940/
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
"Five Conservatives?" Roberts, Thomas?......I'm drwaing a blank here.
Oh Scalia. That's three.
In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said “this decision is more likely to complicate than to clarify our capital sentencing jurisprudence.”
Also disagreeing with the decision were Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, although their reasons were varied.
------
Liberal activism? Oh, no, not on OUR SCOTUS!!!
LOL! Timing could not be better. Now the Dems are going to have a tougher argument that this changes the balance.
But I really credit SC Justice John Roberts for helping to frame the questions in such a way that the "moderates" (read, weaker jurists) and so precisely that there is less deviation from the actual law.
An MSM "Conservative" is anyone right of Lenin.
I really think Congress should admend the Constitiution to make a Supreme Court Ruling binding only in a 6-3 or greater ruling. (A 5-4 would be a "no decision"!!)
Since Sandra agreed with the majority on this the liberals will be quiet. Had she "swung" it to the liberal side, they would trumpet her "swing vote" on such important matters in the current fight against Alito.
For all those who complain about Kennedy and O'Connor as libs, just look at this case, Bush v. Gore and in O'C's case Kelo.
Hopefully Stevens will retire soon and we can insert Luttig, JRB or Garza.
I sure that a nice way of saying their opinions were something like:
"Cause we feel like it," or
"According to ancient Mesopotamian Law..." or
"Needles are so icky."
I sure that a nice way of saying their opinions were something like:
"Cause we feel like it," or
"According to ancient Mesopotamian Law..." or
"Needles are so icky."
Scalia and Kennedy
I enjoy how the Supreme Court overturned the 9th Circus again.
I really think Congress should admend the Constitiution to make a Supreme Court Ruling binding only in a 6-3 or greater ruling. (A 5-4 would be a "no decision"!!)
-----
Good idea, but it does not solve the real problem -- which is political activism ON THE COURT, as well as justices who are willing to not only legislate FROM THE BENCH but also DEFY THE CONSTITUTION.
There are justices on that court that should not be there. That is the fix -- and until the Congress can clean up its act and fix the selection procedure to weed out activists, and restore the court to a judicial body, not a political body, will we ever have the problem fixed.
The 9th Circus overturned - AGAIN!
I'll bet they're really looking forward to Justice Alito being the new "swing" vote.
Don't underestimate the influence of John Roberts. In hearing the case of Harvard against the military recruiters, Chief Justice Roberts was so precise in framing his questions that it appears that he is leading the "moderates" more to the right than under the late Chief Justice Rehnquist.
Actually I love 5-4 rulings, they are the ultimate nah na na na nah.
Why should 5-4 be no decision? Either there's a majority or there is not.
This court does not appear as vulnerable to adjudicating from the bench, IMHO. Thank you John Roberts! Thank you President Bush!
I was reading some of the remarks in the Harvard case, and he is really sharp and quick. I can see that he can drive at least Kennedy to the right more often. Souter is a lost cause, too many perks, too many clerks ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.