Posted on 02/01/2006 5:26:24 PM PST by Former Military Chick
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 :-)
This vote was purely procedure, sets no precedent, nor does it forshadow the Court's eventual decision. Two other cases from Florida having received stays on the same grounds, no surprise.
These cases do bring to mind something I thought of reading about an industrial accident that happens every few years. Two workers finishing the clean up of a chemical tank died inside the tank. The tank had been flushed with nitrogen to purge any residue of the lighter gas that had been in it. Someone had failed to make sure the nitrogen had been replaced with a breathable atmosphere, and the workers just very peaceably went to sleep permanently. No poison, no distress, just pure anoxia. Would be hard to make a "cruel and unusual" case if the condemned just went to sleep.
;ould you predict the race of the Appellant?
Norweigan ?
I hope so too, and I am not one to be pointing this out if this happens.
The question was it procedural in Florida. They had to take him off the gurney just as they started. What in their brief caught their eye's about the use of lethal injection that concerned them?
I have to admit I am curious.
Just bugs me, he admitted to doing this, then his race card did not work so they went down this road. For him, it may be a game to live. For the family of the victim I suspect they have waited a long time for justice.
It is as always a delight to read your point of view. :)
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 only know what I've inferred from the article, but I don't think today's decision had anything to do with the facts underlying this guy's conviction or the question of "cruel and unusual punishment". If the issue of mootness would be sufficient for the court to render its decision, it generally won't even look at anything else.
We'll see other decisions very soon and will have a better handle on how he's going to vote. He seems like a good solid jurist and I think we are not going to regret seeing him on the Court.
However, we'll never agree with anyone 100%. Ever. Darn it :-)
I agree, this vote was a procedural thing and that is it. They also know this guy is going to die and they won't stop it. I think letting this first vote bother anyone is silly!
BTW, when do you think he will finally face his punishment?
It's like the old story of some guy in some faraway kingdom long ago who was sentenced to death by the king and he said to the king: if you let me live in jail for one year, and give me your dog, I'll teach the dog to talk. If at the end of the year, your dog can talk, you set me free. Otherwise, kill me.
The king agreed, saying he'd love to have a talking dog and there's no risk, there's plenty of jail space, the prisoner can always be executed a year from now.
In jail, another inmate asks the condemned man: what was that all about? What do you think you’re doing? What are you trying to pull?
The condemned man says: well, no matter what, I get the extra year. And, who knows what can happen in a year. The king could die and another king pardon me. There could be a war. There could be a revolution. There could even be an earthquake. And you never know, the dog could talk.
So back to reality. The murderer gets a little more time. But in the end, I don't think the dog's going to talk.
A 9-0 decision?
Something's either (1) very fishy with the original case.
Or (2) just a routine procedural "bump" in the road to actually voting ON the merits of the case.
ACtually, sounds more a "vote to keep open the case tommorrow - so don't do anything overnight" ..........
Sort of reminds me of the old joke that ended, "looks like he stole more chain than he could swim with."
Is there a law that says what methods of execution are permissable?
HEy, Drudge is saying it wasn't a 9-0 decision and that Alito went with the dems and not the Conservatives making it a 5-4 vote. What am I missing here? Is Drudge wrong or are we?
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.