Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Alito's First Ruling Isn't Encouraging (Soutered again?)
Sierra Times ^ | 2/3/2006 | Lee R. Shelton IV

Posted on 02/03/2006 1:05:52 PM PST by FerdieMurphy

Imagine yourself in the stands at the Kentucky Derby. A new horse by the name of President's Choice, a strong thoroughbred that racing aficionados have been talking about, is favored to win. "And they're off!"

Now imagine everyone's shock when the gates fly open and the odds-on favorite starts running the wrong way. We saw something similar last night.

Samuel Alito, the "conservative" judicial nominee over whom all good little Republicans were drooling, cast his first vote as the nation's newest black-robed oligarch. This morning's edition of the Washington Post reported: "New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court's conservatives Wednesday night, refusing to let Missouri execute a death-row inmate contesting lethal injection.

"Alito, handling his first case, sided with inmate Michael Taylor, who had won a stay from an appeals court earlier in the evening. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas supported lifting the stay, but Alito joined the remaining five members in turning down Missouri's last-minute request to allow a midnight execution. ..."

Is this what "conservatives" were hoping for when President Bush nominated Alito to the Supreme Court? I doubt it. But perhaps I'm rushing to judgment (pardon the pun). Who is this Michael Taylor anyway? As a Jan. 27 article in the Columbia Missourian explains, Taylor was "sentenced to death after being convicted of the rape and murder of 15-year-old Ann Harrison on March 22, 1989."

Okay, so the defense must have discovered some new DNA evidence that casts a reasonable doubt on Taylor's guilt, right? Not really. The article continues: "A federal judge last week issued a stay of Taylor's Feb. 1 execution in response to his lawyer's request for a hearing to present evidence challenging the lethal injection process. …Taylor's lawyer, John William Simon of St. Louis, has since filed a federal court action arguing that the three drugs the state uses in executions create a risk of gratuitous pain that is not necessary to carry out "the mere extinguishment of life."

Let's see if I understand this. The case before the Supreme Court yesterday had nothing to do with using the normal appeals process to examine new evidence that had come to light. In fact, it had nothing at all to do with determining Taylor's guilt or innocence. It was all about the method of execution? Was Taylor's lawyer able to interview death row inmates who had been executed by lethal injection to see what they had to say?

Michael Taylor has already spent the last 17 years living on taxpayer expense. That's two years longer than the girl he kidnapped, raped and killed had her entire life. Now, the Supreme Court of the United States wants to stand in the way of justice simply because the drugs used to carry out an execution may not provide the condemned murderer with the comfort he expects when paying the price for his brutal crime.

I find this rather odd. When this country was young, no one questioned the constitutionality of death by hanging or firing squad. But now, in the 21st century, we find ourselves debating whether or not the act of sedating murderers before executing them is cruel and unusual punishment.

At the very least, that should be left for the states to decide. After all, not every state has the death penalty, so there is obviously still some consideration given to the concept of states' rights. I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that if individual states are able to decide whether or not they will implement capital punishment, then they should be allowed to determine the means of execution.

The fact that Samuel Alito chose to side with the liberals on the Court in a ruling that tramples on states' rights is cause for concern. Those who threw their enthusiastic support behind George W. Bush's nominee may wake up one morning to find that they have been duped yet again, and the nation's highest court has another Souter on its hands.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Extended News; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: alito; asininepost; chafeeshappy; embarrassing; handwringers; hillaryshappy; hysteria; hysterics; justdamn; kneejerkingfreepers; leersheltoniv; michaeltaylor; notasininepost; ridiculous; ruling; schumershappy; scotus; teddyshappy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-216 next last
...refusing to let Missouri execute a death-row inmate contesting lethal injection.

Just damn!

1 posted on 02/03/2006 1:05:53 PM PST by FerdieMurphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

This has widely been debunked as misreporting.
Laura Ingraham had a good bit on it


2 posted on 02/03/2006 1:06:42 PM PST by Mount Athos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

Alito during confirmation process said in a death penalty case if 4 others desented he'd desent too as a matter of judical courtasy.

I RESPECT a MAN of his word.


3 posted on 02/03/2006 1:07:35 PM PST by funkywbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

Yes. This is also exactly what he said he would do during his Senate confirmation testimony.


4 posted on 02/03/2006 1:08:01 PM PST by MarcusTulliusCicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

Ah Ah ah don't try to spread reason now -- we are doomed, DOOmed, DOOMED!!!!!!!!


5 posted on 02/03/2006 1:08:13 PM PST by commish (Freedom Tastes Sweetest to Those Who Have Fought to Preserve It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

No one should start freaking out. If you were an incoming Justice and faced with a Death Penalty case on your first day wouldn't you tend to be cautious intill you are better settled and have chance to review everthing in the case.


6 posted on 02/03/2006 1:08:27 PM PST by jbwbubba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos
Good. I'd be very surprised if Alito turned into a Suitor.
7 posted on 02/03/2006 1:08:53 PM PST by TAdams8591 (The first amendment does NOT protect vulgar and obscene speech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lil'freeper

Ping


8 posted on 02/03/2006 1:08:57 PM PST by big'ol_freeper (..it takes some pretty serious yodeling to..filibuster from a five star ski resort in the Swiss Alps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: funkywbr

While he may be a man of his word, it's hardly a proper way to interpret a matter of constitutional law. Head count and I'll vote.


9 posted on 02/03/2006 1:09:07 PM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy; sheltonmac

Bump. The problems I have with Alito are the same problems I have with Roberts. Both big government conservatives. Thomas is the only originalist on the Court currently


10 posted on 02/03/2006 1:09:25 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

Climb down off the ledge, Lee. Alito said in his hearings that he favored review of death penalty cases, and even said that he would provide the fifth vote as a matter of judicial courtesy if that situation were to arise. He's doing what he said he'd do.


11 posted on 02/03/2006 1:09:32 PM PST by John Jorsett (scam never sleeps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

Debunked already.


12 posted on 02/03/2006 1:09:50 PM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: FerdieMurphy

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.....I just love to say it.


14 posted on 02/03/2006 1:10:14 PM PST by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

Taylor's lawyer, John William Simon of St. Louis, has since filed a federal court action arguing that the three drugs the state uses in executions create a risk of gratuitous pain that is not necessary to carry out "the mere extinguishment of life."


Fine hammer him with a couple of grams of heroin and let him enjoy the ride...


15 posted on 02/03/2006 1:10:21 PM PST by Ouderkirk (Funny how death and destruction seems to happen wherever Muslims gather...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

Agreed. This sounds like people trying to blow their own horn. The facts are this there often aspects of law that make it up to the Courts. Often Circuits split etc. Alito perhaps saw an issue that has been brewing in the lower courts and thought it should be addresses thats all.For goodness sake listening to a Death Penalty issue does not mean that Federalism is dead


16 posted on 02/03/2006 1:10:38 PM PST by bayourant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
That's does it! I'm sitting out the mid-terms and voting for the Dems! < /Hysterical FReepers >
17 posted on 02/03/2006 1:11:16 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (None genuine without my signature - Jim Beam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
Please don't be so ignorant and REACTIONARY about Supreme Court Matters.

This is nothing more than a procedural matter.
18 posted on 02/03/2006 1:11:36 PM PST by msnimje (SAMMY for SANDY --- THAT IS WHAT I CALL A GOOD TRADE!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

Since the Constitution expressly forbids "cruel and unusual punishment," this is a good case for the SCOTUS to consider. It's a pure Constitutional issue.

Since the Constitution does not specify what is and is not "cruel and unusual," the SCOTUS is the body to decide this.

Alito is acting according to his beliefs that the court should not engage in activism. Constitutional issues are the very thing the SCOTUS is for.


19 posted on 02/03/2006 1:11:37 PM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

Perhaps we gloated prematurely. Feels like we got semi-boiled egg on our faces after all the crowing we did on Tuesday! I hope I'm completely WRONG...:(


20 posted on 02/03/2006 1:12:08 PM PST by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Alito said in his hearings that he favored review of death penalty cases

Exactly. Therein lies one of the problems. Unless the criminal has been charged under federal law (which in fact there shouldn't be federal laws for murder, etc. if it doesn't involved a federal official) the issue is up to the separate and sovereign states. The case should have stopped at the state's respective Supreme Court

21 posted on 02/03/2006 1:12:08 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

FREAK OUT!!!

WORRY WORRY WORRY!!

SOUTER SOUTER SOUTER!?!?!?!

Don't even mind that this is a completely mis-reported piece, let's FREAK OUT AND WORRY THAT YOU GOT SOUTERED!!!!


22 posted on 02/03/2006 1:12:25 PM PST by MikefromOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas

you are wrong. period.


23 posted on 02/03/2006 1:12:52 PM PST by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas

"I hope I'm completely WRONG...:(
"

You are.


24 posted on 02/03/2006 1:13:16 PM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

The author is another Chicken Little idiot who can't decipher a fact to save his life. Just looking for a chance to put on the professional victimology wardrobe and rend his garments while screaming "betrayal." 'Sierra Times' should be a tipoff that what follows is likely tinfoil or hysteria.

And there's a sucker registered every minute, it seems...


25 posted on 02/03/2006 1:13:30 PM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

LOL


26 posted on 02/03/2006 1:13:43 PM PST by MikefromOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq

27 posted on 02/03/2006 1:13:53 PM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MarcusTulliusCicero

Can you explain exactly what he said that relates to this? He was part of a 6 judge majority if I'm reading this right.


28 posted on 02/03/2006 1:14:02 PM PST by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
Chin up, little buckaroo. Everything is gonna be just fine.
29 posted on 02/03/2006 1:14:19 PM PST by jennyjenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

The guy had been a USSCJ for less than 24 hours.

Maybe he wanted more time to review a matter of life and death? He deserves the benefit of the doubt, esp since he did what he said he'd do in the hearings.


30 posted on 02/03/2006 1:14:21 PM PST by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

This is so stupid it is hardly worth commenting on. You people who are throwing a fit about this wouldn't be able to pass a basic civics test if your life depended on it.

The 8th Circuit wants to review this case and Alito voted to allow them to do so. You act as though he made a ruling on the merits - he did not. Get with it, folks.


31 posted on 02/03/2006 1:14:22 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

Seems to me that in a death case it makes sense to go slow and make sure that the fellow is really guilty, and to consider the legal and constitutional arguments that may be presented.

Apparently it seems that way to Justice Alito too.

Good.


32 posted on 02/03/2006 1:14:30 PM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance

LOL

That's exactly how I feel on here sometimes LOL


33 posted on 02/03/2006 1:14:32 PM PST by MikefromOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat

"'Sierra Times' should be a tipoff that what follows is likely tinfoil or hysteria.
"

Yes. "Sierra Times" is often the source for postings here, but it is not a reliable source. Sadly, it often engages in distortions of fact to make a political point.


34 posted on 02/03/2006 1:14:48 PM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
It was a relatively meaningless procedural decision, most likely unrelated to the merits of the underlying case. He granted a bit more time to review a point before carrying out the sentence.

Commie Ron Kuby might have had a point when he said, "Maybe he just didn't want to kill a guy on his first day on the job."

35 posted on 02/03/2006 1:14:58 PM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jbwbubba
If you were an incoming Justice and faced with a Death Penalty case on your first day wouldn't you tend to be cautious intill you are better settled and have chance to review everthing in the case.

And how long has this innocent been warehoused? But his "innocence" isn't in contention here. He thinks an injection is a cruel and inhuman way to be executed.

I say bring back Old Sparky and let these vicious killers go out in a blaze of electronic, sparking glory.

No, Bubba, if I happened to be an incoming justice on the Soopreme Court, I'd go with execution every time.

36 posted on 02/03/2006 1:15:02 PM PST by FerdieMurphy (For English, Press One. (Tookie, you won the Pulitzer and Nobel prizes. Oh, too late.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

This is a procedural vote, not a vote on the merits of the death penalty (constitutionality of lethal injection). Stop being idiots. When we see his first opinion on a split decision of an important constitutional issue THEN talk.


37 posted on 02/03/2006 1:15:11 PM PST by Nova442 ("Cry Havoc and let slip the Dogs of War.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

Already Debunked.

Repeat after me...


"I will not produce knee jerk reactions. I will not produce knee jerk reactions..."


38 posted on 02/03/2006 1:15:32 PM PST by RockinRight (Attention RNC...we're the party of Reagan, not FDR...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

Rush explained it pretty well on Thursday.

Alito did exactly what he said he would during his confirmation testimony.


39 posted on 02/03/2006 1:15:54 PM PST by airborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

do you know exactly was argued and held here in this case? do you KNOW what alito voted ON?


40 posted on 02/03/2006 1:16:24 PM PST by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq

I'm with Mike, its time to forget what actually happened and

FREAK OUT....AUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

FREAKY FREEPERS FRANTICALLY FREAKIN FREEPEN!


41 posted on 02/03/2006 1:16:45 PM PST by fizziwig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
You can probably relax. The Sierra Times is a bit, well, shrill to put it charitably. The story ran yesterday IIRC, and it was mentioned on the news I listened to that the whole thing was a procedural matter.
42 posted on 02/03/2006 1:17:06 PM PST by Mugwump
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
Certainly. Let's make certain he's guilty.

Michael Taylor has already spent the last 17 years living on taxpayer expense. That's two years longer than the girl he kidnapped, raped and killed had her entire life.

43 posted on 02/03/2006 1:17:24 PM PST by FerdieMurphy (For English, Press One. (Tookie, you won the Pulitzer and Nobel prizes. Oh, too late.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: everyone

The vote in the Missouri case isn't a problem. He hadn't seen it before and therefore couldn't in good conscience reject it without a hearing.

But the pledge to provide a free vote to review death-penalty cases as a matter of courtesy, regardless of his own judgment, is terrible. One, it sets an awful precedent, however seemingly minor. The senators should be given no promises whatsoever. Now that they've been given a promise, it strengthens their ability and inclination to demand more promises of future nominess. Major political blunder by Alito. Two, it ignores the fact that there are four hard-left "justices" on the Court. If Alito is an automatic fifth vote to review death penalty cases, he is making it harder to carry out the death penalty by further entangling it in usually meritless litigation.


44 posted on 02/03/2006 1:17:58 PM PST by California Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

You've got to give the man a chance to settle in and get a sense of how things work.If we see him voting with that Marxist from the ACLU six months from now,then we'll know there's a problem.


45 posted on 02/03/2006 1:18:42 PM PST by Gay State Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jbwbubba
No one should start freaking out.

Samuel Alito, the "conservative" judicial nominee over whom all good little Republicans were drooling, cast his first vote as the nation's newest black-robed oligarch. This morning's edition of the Washington Post reported: "New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court's conservatives Wednesday night, refusing to let Missouri execute a death-row inmate contesting lethal injection.

LOL

Posters have been freaking out for several days now.

Pitiful. But fun to watch and count the hysterics over a procedural matter.

I'll wait for a vote and an opinion when or if the Missouri (or similar) case reaches the SC.

46 posted on 02/03/2006 1:18:59 PM PST by Racehorse (Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
He's history's greatest monster!

Just kidding. He deserves a few more rulings and some time before we come to a final judgement.

47 posted on 02/03/2006 1:19:25 PM PST by jpl ("We don't negotiate with terrorists, we put them out of business." - Scott McClellan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: funkywbr
Alito during confirmation process said in a death penalty case if 4 others desented [sic] he'd desent [sic] too as a matter of judical [sic] courtasy [sic].

Judicial "courtesy"?

All we heard was "the Constitution" and the "rule of law". Since when was being "courteous" the rally cry of conservatives to get a "conservative" on the bench So Alito places "courtesy" above the rule of law?

Bring back Harriet Miers!

48 posted on 02/03/2006 1:19:31 PM PST by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (Bush's #1 priority Africa. #2 priority appease Fox and Mexico . . . USA priority #64.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mugwump
I'm glad some of our news sources are, as you put it, a bit shrill.

This namby-pamby approach to the news that gets vomited out by the MSM has got us in the pickle we now find ourselves on our Southern border.

America is in sore need of a big wake up call. Screwing around with murderers for decades is too stupid! The Supreme Court should have refused to hear any further details about this convicted child killer.

49 posted on 02/03/2006 1:20:26 PM PST by FerdieMurphy (For English, Press One. (Tookie, you won the Pulitzer and Nobel prizes. Oh, too late.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
Wasn't this a unanimous decision? Is the author accusing all of the justices of falling over ungracefully to the left?
50 posted on 02/03/2006 1:20:39 PM PST by TChris ("Unless you act, you're going to lose your world." - Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-216 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson