Posted on 02/01/2006 5:26:24 PM PST by Former Military Chick
WASHINGTON -- New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito cast his first vote on Wednesday, as the court refused to give Missouri permission to immediately execute a man who killed a teenage honor student.
The court's 9-0 action was procedural, however, because a stay was already set to expire Wednesday afternoon.
Separately, the court acting without Alito rejected Michael Taylor's appeal that argued that Missouri's death penalty system is racist. Taylor is black and his victim was white.
"The death penalty as practiced in the state of Missouri discriminates against African-Americans such as (Taylor), such that it is a badge of slavery," the justices were told in a filing by Taylor's lawyer, John William Simon.
Taylor had won a stay until Wednesday afternoon in a lower court, and Missouri wanted the justices to lift that stay. It was the second time in two days that the Supreme Court had turned down a Missouri request to allow it to proceed with the execution. The Tuesday vote, without Alito's participation, came hours after he won Senate confirmation to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and took the oath.
Alito was being sworn in again Wednesday at the White House.
Taylor's legal team had pursued two legal challenges -- claiming that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment and that his constitutional rights were violated by a system tilted against black defendants.
Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a pro-death penalty group, said that Taylor had only a long- shot appeal because of federal limits on when courts can hear final pleas from death row inmates.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
What's worse, that this guy first used the race card, that failed and his legal team went with the latest, lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment. Oh and the system is tilted against black denfendants.
Just angry.
bump...to be watched...
"I know other's will say differently but I disagree."
Hey, it was 9-0.
Pick your battles.
Having just come onto the court I think he should have recused himself since there is no way he could be aware of the facts of the case.
OK fine, shoot him.
let him go swimming with a concrete block chained to his foot then.
Was it cruel and unusual punishment that his victim endured because it was black on white crime?
His arguement gains no sympathy from me.
PING
I had heard that this was Alito's first vote. That it was unanimous. OK, perhaps this is procedural but frankly I do not think so. The idea that this defense team first can say that their client is being treated unjustly in a system tilted against blacks. When that did not work they then included the issue of cruel and unusual punishment.
Give me a break. Where does this go from here.
At least nobody messes with TX, Elizalde was executed Wednesday for a double slaying. Why did the supreme's reject their appeals, more curious why did they not use the cruel and unusual punishment?
Conservatives Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts voted the same. Angry with them too, or just the Court newbie?
My battle, folks have been tried and convicted. This is abuse the first bite, race did not work. When Florida won their stay, the guys in Missouri jumped on the wagon.
There is just something wrong.
Battles or not. He did not have to side with the rest. Again, I have to wonder?
Relax. The thug is going to die and Alito's going to be a great judge.
First, Alito did not have to go with the group on this one. This guy admitted to doing the crime.
The system worked for him. Until his lawyers got involved making it a race issue that failed and than they used the latest about cruel punishment.
I am very disappointed in the high court today.
Ruled the same, that is.
It was 9-ZIP. He voted with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, ...
OK, relaxed, but I can be disappointed. He admitted to this. The families have come to terms that they finally can see justice carried out and they get this.
I feel for them. I am mad at the abuse, that his defense team was fishing for a stay and Florida helped them find it.
BTW, when do you think he will finally face his punishment?
Thanks for the comment.
It is entirely procedural. This is the kind of case that the dems tried over and over to use against Justice Alito. It is not outcome based. This is the biggest nothing in the world. And yes, I am a lawyer.
Mr. Mojo, yes disappointed in them all. I just have to wonder what it is that moved them on this issue?
What after all these years makes this a compelling argument for their review. That put's into limbo several executions that many victim's family were finally going to be able to see justice carried.
Thank you for asking this, it is important to ask such a question.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito....I just like saying it.
I suppose I should have been a bit more clear I am upset with them all. Just wondering why they chose this to take issue with or frankly in the end against.
They knew that these guys were trying for anything, race etc. They knew he admitted to the crime.
I just have to say, knowing what I know, I would have no difficulty allowing the execution to have gone forward.
Thanks for the comment.
I have no doubt that he will be an excellent Justice. I just wonder what compelled his vote today.
I believe these steps are procedural, that it's near the end of the appeals process, that it's going to fail in the end and that he's going to die. If he's alive in 2007, I'll be surprised.
As for Alito, let me give my prediction: he will be as good as we all hoped for, and then some.
;-)
This does not mean that ultimately this person will avoid the death penalty. They are following the law. When the law allows, they will allow Missouri to proceed.
Then someone had a laugher that mentioned that he should have recused himself since he did not know the details. This was a technical motion as to how the state should proceed with the death penalty.
"He did not have to side with the rest."
If "the rest" includes Thomas, Scalia, Roberts then we are truly screwed.
You didn't read. The court rejected the argument that the system is racist.
This vote only granted another stay of execution since the stay ended Wed (today?).
A 9-0 vote indicates there is more time needed to review the case although the pretense of the appeal appears to be flimsy to most of us who believe in justice.
It is procedural. The court just wanted more time I guess to consider the matter before having him executed. I doubt it will be much of a delay.
Alito is a JUSTICE, not an advocate. As I read this he cast a vote, with all 8 other justices, to ignore the request of the state to void a stay that expires this week. That wasn't a vote for or against any position on the death penalty, just a vote to say "give it up - it's moot."
He knew what he needed to know from reading the briefs and I believe there have been no arguments, just briefs filed. I'm willing to bet that he read the briefs.
To those that argue "he should have recused himself," I understand your thinking, but I don't think you have all the facts straight. From my reading of this he had exactly the same information as all of the other justices. He had no reason to recuse. This is apparently not a case that was argued before the court before he was confirmed and sworn in. Just one that was filed before then. I wouldn't be surprised that he spent more time with the briefs than the other justices.
This is NOT a Souter moment, not if he and Clarence/CJ/Scalia agree. Nor does it make him a hanging judge, not if he and Ruthy agree.
Give Alito a friggin' break. (I know you are, Petronius, I'm referring to the others here who might be mad at Alito!)
First, it is never my intent to be rude to a fellow poster. I try my best to be as informed a poster as I can be and I readily admit I do not know all things. Further, as someone who lives in the area, followed this case, I understand it quite well.
It was moving along just fine. Even if I felt that the defense team was abusing their methods by first using the race card and now the cruel and unusual punishment card, done so only after what happened in Florida.
Not sure where the "laughter/ recused"(sp) himself came from as this was not part of my reply.
I hope that the family finally finds justice and that it happens swiftly.
It was a 9-0 verdict, FMC. If even Scalia didn't go along, I don't think it's fair to fault Alito.
Taylor's legal team had pursued two legal challenges -- claiming that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment and that his constitutional rights were violated by a system tilted against black defendants.
I guess they added it for luck?
I appreciate your clarification. I suppose I come from the point of view that justice is slow in arrival for the victims.
If we are going to have a death penalty it should move swiftly. In some states it does.
Last about 720pm the execution was a go, in breaking local coverage. The Florida stay gave them something to bite on.
I suppose if it's there than so what.
Have to wonder, after all these years, this is the first time some defense lawyer asked the question of the issue of cruel and unusual punishment by lethal injection, seems odd.
Two things.
The first is that you delay a death sentence to hear arguments, obviously (even if they are not very good arguments), because if you allow the execution to proceed, and the arguments were actually very good...well...they won't do any good at that point, will they.
Second, I'm just not going to be surprised when a primarily Catholic Supreme Court is very leery about the death penalty and takes a "go slow" approach to every case.
Peach, you are right, I should have stated at the onset that I am disappointed in all of them.
Why is this mehod of punishment questionable to these justices? What in the arguements swayed them this was worthy of taking up?
You are very independent minded. I hope all are, whether the rest voted to stay, I would have voted the other way.
It looks as though the Supreme Court's procedural vote is more directed toward honoring the stay already in place from a lower court. A 9-0 outcome is highly unlikely to be based on liberal activism.
The article is confusing, but I think what it's saying is:
I think we should be very glad they give thqat right due deference in any case.
This is nothing more than an answer to some future trival question.
Your comments were insightful, thank you. It is personal opinion and one of disappointment. I am not going to jump off the bridge or send him a nasty note or anything. I just have concerns.
The defense team tried one option, that did not work, than they saw the FL decision and tried that and it worked. It makes me feel icky.
It is yet more waiting time, for a family that has waited some time. This is not an issue over his guilt. He admitted to it.
This is about the method, that is now only being questioned, quite odd to me.
Should he have recused himself, I had not brought that up. This was about a stay. Not as if another justice heard the arguments and he now ruled on them. Again, you provided an excellent observation for those who have added that aspect to the thread, so again thank you.
My interpretation of the article (it's rather confusing) is basically this: if the court were to decide to void this guy's stay, it would have ended the minute they voided it. Since they did not, it ended this afternoon (probably around 5pm).
The motion to void the stay may have mattered some time ago, but by the time the issue came before the Court, there wasn't really any point in the Court intervening. I don't know if or when the state presented oral arguments, but if it was in the last day or two the state might not have thought it worthwhile to invest much effort; if that's the case, the Court's decision would be a no-brainer.
OK, he admitted to the crime. So, now, after all these years lethal injection may not be the method to execute.
If not that, then what?
Hey I am for justice. I am for following the law. If folks wish to remove the death penalty than I am for it.
But, after all these year, and careful consideration over this method, it is odd this is NOW an issue.
As always thank you for the comment. :)
You're welcome. And yes, the wheels of justice move agonizingly slowly but sometimes they get it right.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the article, or perhaps you are. It does seem rather confusing.
My interpretation is that had the Supreme Court decided at e.g. 1:00pm to lift the stay, it would have been void as of 1:00pm. Since that didn't happen, the stay expired this afternoon (5:00pm maybe?) and so the Court's failure to void the stay left it in place a few hours longer than it might otherwise have been.
Now the question, doesn't one have to wear them? :)
I am just frustrated at all the delays, and if I am, I cannot imagine the families awaiting justice to be carried out.
I should've waited for another moment before posting. You said it much better than I did, supercat.
Non-Sequiter, I'm not even certain that the Supreme Court would be looking at the facts of the case, since they are usually concerned with the constitutionality of the arguments. Of course, this is merely my understanding of what SCOTUS does, and I could be quite wrong.
I think this guy will still get justice and that this was a procedural matter that SCOTUS dealt with; I really don't think it's too important at this point.
If I'm proven wrong in the future, and they start to head down the road of finding the death penalty is unconstitutional, I'll admit I was wrong :-)
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.