Alito casts first vote in Missouri death penalty case - appeal says cruel and unusual punishment

Newsday Inc. ^ | February 1, 2006, 4:22 PM EST | Newsday Inc.

[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.

[samtheman]

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.

[xrp]

OOOOH FREEDOM DOOMED! ALITO DESTROYED A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE! WE'RE ALL GONNA BE SENT TO REX-84 CONFINEMENT CAMPS BY THE EXTREME RADICAL RIGHT CULTURE OF CORRUPTION!

;-)

[Dave W]

You are speaking from extreme ignorance. I think one should refrain from making judgements when you don't know the facts. A procedural vote most likely entails following what is prescribed by law.

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.

[PetroniusMaximus]

"He did not have to side with the rest."

If "the rest" includes Thomas, Scalia, Roberts then we are truly screwed.

[rwfromkansas]

You didn't read. The court rejected the argument that the system is racist.

[o_zarkman44]

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.

[rwfromkansas]

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.

[Ninian Dryhope]

"New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito"

Still, you have to admit, that has a nice ring to it.

[Phsstpok]

I am very disappointed. This was not by far a good use of his first vote. I know other's will say differently but I disagree.

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.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Look, when Scalia and Thomas can come to an agreement with Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens, then I'm inclined to trust the court.

Give Alito a friggin' break. (I know you are, Petronius, I'm referring to the others here who might be mad at Alito!)

[Former Military Chick]

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.

[Peach]

It was a 9-0 verdict, FMC. If even Scalia didn't go along, I don't think it's fair to fault Alito.

[Former Military Chick]

yes, I did read that, and that is what anger's me, that is what they tried first, however, in the recent appeal this is what they put in it ......

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?

[Former Military Chick]

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.

[Vicomte13]

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.

[Former Military Chick]

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.

[skr]

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.

[supercat]

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.

The article is confusing, but I think what it's saying is:

1. The convict had earlier won a stay of execution which was set to expire this afternoon.
2. At some time, the state of Missouri had filed a motion to have the stay lifted prior to expiration.
3. The question before the Supreme Court was whether to lift the stay before it expired this afternoon.
4. In order for the court to lift the stay, it would have to significantly research the issue to ensure that there was good cause for doing so. This would take awhile.
5. By the time the court would have been able to ensure that it was proper for it to lift the stay, the stay would have expired of its own accord.

I don't know how the scheduling of this case worked; my guess would be that the case was filed when the decision might have mattered, but by the time the case got to the Supreme Court the issue was moot.

[jwalsh07]

Why be disappointed? The preeminent right described in the DOI and the Constitution is the right to life. The federal government is the ultimate defender of that right (or should be).

I think we should be very glad they give thqat right due deference in any case.