Posted on 02/03/2006 1:05:52 PM PST by FerdieMurphy
Imagine yourself in the stands at the Kentucky Derby. A new horse by the name of President's Choice, a strong thoroughbred that racing aficionados have been talking about, is favored to win. "And they're off!"
Now imagine everyone's shock when the gates fly open and the odds-on favorite starts running the wrong way. We saw something similar last night.
Samuel Alito, the "conservative" judicial nominee over whom all good little Republicans were drooling, cast his first vote as the nation's newest black-robed oligarch. This morning's edition of the Washington Post reported: "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. ..."
Is this what "conservatives" were hoping for when President Bush nominated Alito to the Supreme Court? I doubt it. But perhaps I'm rushing to judgment (pardon the pun). Who is this Michael Taylor anyway? As a Jan. 27 article in the Columbia Missourian explains, Taylor was "sentenced to death after being convicted of the rape and murder of 15-year-old Ann Harrison on March 22, 1989."
Okay, so the defense must have discovered some new DNA evidence that casts a reasonable doubt on Taylor's guilt, right? Not really. The article continues: "A federal judge last week issued a stay of Taylor's Feb. 1 execution in response to his lawyer's request for a hearing to present evidence challenging the lethal injection process. …Taylor's lawyer, John William Simon of St. Louis, has since filed a federal court action arguing that the three drugs the state uses in executions create a risk of gratuitous pain that is not necessary to carry out "the mere extinguishment of life."
Let's see if I understand this. The case before the Supreme Court yesterday had nothing to do with using the normal appeals process to examine new evidence that had come to light. In fact, it had nothing at all to do with determining Taylor's guilt or innocence. It was all about the method of execution? Was Taylor's lawyer able to interview death row inmates who had been executed by lethal injection to see what they had to say?
Michael Taylor has already spent the last 17 years living on taxpayer expense. That's two years longer than the girl he kidnapped, raped and killed had her entire life. Now, the Supreme Court of the United States wants to stand in the way of justice simply because the drugs used to carry out an execution may not provide the condemned murderer with the comfort he expects when paying the price for his brutal crime.
I find this rather odd. When this country was young, no one questioned the constitutionality of death by hanging or firing squad. But now, in the 21st century, we find ourselves debating whether or not the act of sedating murderers before executing them is cruel and unusual punishment.
At the very least, that should be left for the states to decide. After all, not every state has the death penalty, so there is obviously still some consideration given to the concept of states' rights. I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that if individual states are able to decide whether or not they will implement capital punishment, then they should be allowed to determine the means of execution.
The fact that Samuel Alito chose to side with the liberals on the Court in a ruling that tramples on states' rights is cause for concern. Those who threw their enthusiastic support behind George W. Bush's nominee may wake up one morning to find that they have been duped yet again, and the nation's highest court has another Souter on its hands.
I don't think that's what's going on.
I believe Taylor's (cruel and unusual based) appeal is at the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals which will hear arguments.
If they grant or deny the appeal, Missouri or Taylor gets to appeal and the hysterical folks just might get what they want--an 8th Amendment case where Alito gets to please or horrify us with an actual vote and opinion on the matter.
Two other similar cases are in Florida, both of which were stayed by the SC.
Of course, I could be wrong.
I have it from a very good source that Alito is a lot more liberal than people realize. There will be a lot of very surprised people.
Oh, it's not "angry rhetoric". I have confidence in Alito. MikeinIraq stalks me so I like to raise his blood pressure. But this "courtesy" thing, if so, is ludicrous, and runs counter to the claims by Alito and his backers (including me) that he will rule based on the Constitution. "Being courteous" is not part of Constitutional law.
Debunked cr@p
LOL, that's spot on!
I have indeed heard of that worthless, baseless clause. A clause that was not 'found' until 1897, thirty years after the passage of the 14th Amendment. A clause that only applies to the Amendments where this mysterious clause has been applied. A clause that must be overturned if there is a hope to return to a Constitutional Republic
Lincoln even tried to justify the war by claiming that it wasn't the states that gave rise to the Union but that the Union gave rise to the States..
Yes and a famous 20th century leader (non-US) fully agreed with him. Care to guess which tyrant did?
Until you either repeal the relevant clause of the 14th Amendment or get the Supreme Court to reinterpret it, your original complaint is baseless. Under the current interpretation, the case in question is under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. To pretend otherwise is to simply ignore the reality of the situation.
What...utter.....
Here's my recommendation.
There are two roads you can take.
Wily Coyote off the cliff, or sanity.
First road meets Souter, second meets a solid Justice who is what he presented himself to be. Justic Alito that will respect the Constitution, rather than follow the path of the activists.
Why I'm on the thread, I don't know. 'Cause I'm not going to spend years reassuring some folks that evidently don't trust their own prior judgements about Alito because he dares to do as he said he would do.
Unbelieveable.
And to continue nominating judges that see the 14th Amendment as untouchable is to pretend at conservatism and falsely claiming an 'originalist' view. There were judges available and on the short list that, and some may have, agreed fully with this sentiment. And who did Bush pick? A big government hack that will agree with Republican principle. Not a conservative
Nothing was "held"-- there was no written opinion. It's not at all clear that the Supreme Court will even hear the case. What happened is that the inmate appealed to the 8th Circuit. The 8th Circuit granted a stay of execution so it could hear the case. Only after the 8th Circuit decides the case will the Supreme Court have the chance to decide to hear the case or not.
After the 8th Circuit granted a stay of execution, the State prosecutor asked the Supreme Court to reverse the 8th Circuit's stay of execution. The Supreme Court technically has the power to do that, but doesn't do it very often, because, by definition, they haven't heard the merits of the case yet and may never hear them.
The Court voted 6-3 to deny the prosecutor's motion to overturn the stay; Alito voted with the majority, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas dissented. No one wrote any opinions.
i know that. it was a rhetorical question to those going off halfcocked on this, when the jumping to a SOUTER conclusion has been debunked, REPEATEDLY.
I don't think you are in any position to be calling someone a fool.
Relax, everyone, it's only one ruling.
I do not think YET anyway that Alito will be a Souter II. I expect the next appointee to be Souter II!!!!! Still pessimistic with cause, awaiting Alberto Gonzalez, whose name translates to "David Souter."
If you're right, fine.
But there is nothing wrong with vigilance to the point of anxiety. I have to make up for all the complacency on our side. When you win one, it's natural to think you've won more than you have.
Nonsense, TR.
The democrats would have to first win a senate majority before they could even try to force another Souter type on this president.
Gosh, all YOU'VE done is prove you're too dense to find out the FACTS.
You got suckered!
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.