when judging him, please inform yourself of what was argued and what was precisely held. to be making snap judgments on a justice's performance without that information is foolhardy.
I think you'll find my previous post reasoned and temperate, if you reread it. Legal niceties aren't actually that important here; the decision to let the convict state is case is certainly reasonable, or at least not unreasonable. If he supports a declaration that lethal injection is "cruel and unusual", then again technicalities won't matter much. The only mitigation of such an outrage would be if the majority opinion declares that it should be replaced with the "humane and usual" punishment of hanging.