Posted on 02/01/2006 7:01:01 PM PST by kddid
WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.
Upholding a temporary STAY of execution is not the same as overturning an execution.
what was the vote breakdown on the case that spared Lee Malvo?
"More than likely, he did not have sufficient time to review the case and chose to stay the execution to give him time to do so."
That is a very lucid comment - refreshing.
What's odd is that ABCNews.com is carrying a story, also attributed to Gina Holland, that reports the vote as 9-0.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1566627
May be this is the "corrected" article.
I am not a fan of the death penaltly.
O.K. flame away.
There is so much disinformation out there with many people making a mountain out of a molehill. The actual ruling has not been posted on the court web site, so the conflicting stories can not be sorted out.
Where's the justice in that?
Missouri appealed a stay of the execution, which was set to expire anyway this afternoon. Earlier today, the court ruled 9-0 to NOT lift that stay, which then ended on its own on the original schedule.
Meanwhile, the convict had two appeals working up through the courts for a stay of execution for other reasons. In the first, he claimed his death sentence was racist. The court WITHOUT alito ruled 8-0 NOT to grant the stay.
In the second, he claimed that lethal injection was cruel and unusual punishment. Alito heard that request, and then the court voted 5-4 to UPHOLD that request, thus putting the execution on hold.
So, there were THREE votes today, one on a Missouri request (denied 8-0), one on a convict request to stay based on racism (denied 9-0), and one on the convict request to stay based on 8th amendment (accepted 5-4).
Apparently the court has a couple of these 8th amendment appeals about lethal injections wending their way, and I guess Alito thinks it's worth hearing the argument (or at least letting a lower court decide whether to hear the argument).
Anyway, I hope this clears up the confusion.
Even if it was not 9-0 and even if he opposed Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas he still did the right thing. Alito has been on the court for less than 24 hours and he got this case of execution stay that was supposed to expire today. He cannot just go ahead and say yep go ahead and execute the guy without reviewing the case. He needs few days to review it in order to make a sound judgment and this tells a lot about his great demeanour and fairness.
If we put to death 1000 guilty criminals and 1 who is not guilty, to me its not worth it.
You forgot the < / sarcasm> tag ;)
How about 10,000 to 1? 10 million to one?
Thanks for the info.
Note -- it says "THE COURT REFUSED" - Alito voted with everyone else.
Different ruling.
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.
Note -- it says "THE COURT REFUSED" - Alito voted with everyone else. I don't know why other stories say the vote was split unless they're just so anxious to prove he is a liberal and piss off conservatives that they didn't check the facts?
DUH. Kneejerk, anyone?
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.