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.
If lethal injection is not humane...what is? Tickling them to death?
two, please.
you are aware that the vote was 9-0 AND that it only went back to the appellate court RIGHT?
You are aware that this did NOT have anything to do with the Constitutionality of the death penalty RIGHT?
You DID read the decision RIGHT?
I can guess, with you, considering your past, that you haven't and will only go on what you can gleen of certain selected posters comments.
Nor am I surprised that you are on this thread spreading your usual doom and gloom. If you REALLY want to change something, get elected. But you won't. I would fathom a guess that you would rather be an anonymous internet troll you makes conservatives look negative 100% of time because you are negative 100% of the time.
It doesn't work. Thankfully you AREN'T a "true conservative" nor does anyone believe that you are.
"If lethal injection is not humane...what is? Tickling them to death?"
I don't know, to tell you the truth. I am not an expert on executions. This is an issue that is likely to come before the SCOTUS at some point. I will reserve my judgment.
Personally, I am opposed to the state executing anyone. There are other suitable punishments that are even more punishing. But that's just my opinion. The SCOTUS will rule on this at some point.
This isn't a ruling on the law. This is a vote on if there is justification enough to hear argumenst about it being lawful or not.
Drop the angry rhetoric, or at least wait until he actually votes in an actually ruling on the law.
While I think Alito will be fine, the article is about the 6-3 decision not the 9-0 decision.
Just baloney.
This is the custom of SCOTUS when a new justice comes on board in the case of death penalty decisions. Since he's new and SCOTUS wants to err on the side of caution, the new member rules against execution if his is the swing vote.
I'm pretty sure that has been debunked as well....
if not, which vote was the 9-0? Was that not the vote to send the case back to the appellate courts?
There were 2 issues
1. The jury was racist. That was rejected 9-0
2. Lethal Injection violates the 8th amendment. That was accepted 6-3 with Alito part of the 6.
Alito's vote was irrelevant since there were already 5 votes, but it is interesting.
read farther mike....
yeah...
it's interesting...
they will be seeing that case again I think.....
He wasn't the swing vote. This is still much ado about nothing, however.
Two things are in play here.
One the Supreme court is setting up the rules on how and when they will look at appeals of this or any other type.
Two the Supreme court will determine that lethal injection is ok and it will no longer be ok to bring it forward as a reason for a stay at the Supreme Court.
If I'd been more astute I'd have read an autobiography of Justice Douglas and would have no doubt found that "unwritten" rule.
Or, I might have just joined the strict constitutional scholars on the court and voted with them.
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 3:16:24 PM CST by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
BRAVO! xs, I have read the entire thread...lol... you have shown wonderful 'restraint.'
He voted to allow a STAY of execution to continue until it expires. When it does, Alito will let the execution go through.
Gee. I guess this hasn't been trolled to death already.
Bingo
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.