Posted on 02/02/2006 5:56:25 AM PST by NCSteve
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court's conservatives in a death penalty case on his first day on the court.
Handling his first case, Alito sided with five other justices Wednesday evening in refusing to allow Missouri to execute inmate Michael Taylor.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas supported lifting an execution stay issued by an appeals court, but Alito sided with the majority in turning down Missouri's last-minute request to allow a midnight execution.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Perhaps it will lead to the dead-men-walking being able to choose the method and manner of their death (just as they choose their last meal).
Although they might then also argue that the contemplation of that decision alone might constitute 'cruel and unusual punishment'!
I say, provide every death row cell with a rope, that can be used anytime by the convict.
According to one “genius” freeper who was freaking out last night on this “procedural” ruling that Alito is another Souter and the Left made the greatest game of deception in history of US politics by making the President, our Senators, and tens of millions of conservatives think that he is really a conservative where in reality he is a closet liberal. Of course I offered our genius freeper to send him some Reynolds Aluminum roll to make a lot of tin foil hats and bunch of pamper dippers.
Exactly right.
After saying in the hearings that he would judge each case individually, what do you expect him to do first day on the job, vote lockstep with Roberts and Scalia?
Well, you said...
"I don't know of a way to justify this vote on federalist or originalist grounds."
Your conclusion is that, on the face of it, this decision is not justified on federalist or originalist grounds. So I'm wondering how you came to the conclusion that this decision was not justified on federalist or originalist grounds, based on the facts of the case, that is.
Why not? The Washington Post and other papers routinely pick up a story from the AP or Reuters and print it word for word in their papers. That is the purpose of AP and Reuters, they act as a super reporter for all newspapers tha subscribe to their service. Subscribing papers are then able to publish AP stories word for word. This is not like the Washington Post quoting a NYT article. They are publishing the same article word for word.
Read my comment. Don't impose your assumptions on it. I concluded nothing. I stated that I see no way to justify this decision on originalist or federalist grounds. I did not say there was no other justification and I did not say that justification on those grounds was impossible.
If you read and respond to what posters actually write, you will save yourself a lot of embarassment.
Please read the whole thread.
The problem with the reaction of so many freepers is that they fell for they lying media spin produced by the AP.
Alito votes opposite conservatives.
Really, a Justice is supposed to rule to allow the death penalty to proceed without ever reviewing the case in its' entirety.
Is anyone else aware that Alito has ZERO assistants on day one to help him?
He still needs to assemble a staff to help go through the mountains of paperwork.
Morons.
Do you know anything about the facts of the case or are you just drawing a conclusion based upon the result? Suppose the guy had been sentenced to death without the benefit of an impartial jury of his peers? What if the conviction is based upon triple hearsay or evidence that was seized from his home without a warrant? How about if the prosecution withheld from the defense the names of five eye witnesses that would have exonerated the defendant? What if the prosecution has exonerating DNA evidence that it failed to disclose. What if the judge or the defendant's attorney showed up to the trial drunk every day?
All of the issues that I have raised directly concern the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments. My point is that you are drawing a knee-jerk conclusion without knowing anything about the facts and issues in the case.
Apparently some FReepers have a lot of trouble with English. For the third time, there is no conclusion in that statement. You are assuming a conclusion and imposing it on me. Please read the thread before attacking me.
The pummeling he took by Kennedy et al. did its job for the 'Rats.
Come'on, he'd had a whole day on the job. How long should we expect him to take to review a lousy case? /s
Based on some of the recent decisions reached by the SCOTUS, I'd think the better part of 10 minutes.
He could have just asked some of Sandy Baby's staff what to think, and voted accordingly.
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.