Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Alito's First Ruling Isn't Encouraging (Soutered again?)
Sierra Times ^ | 2/3/2006 | Lee R. Shelton IV

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Extended News; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: alito; asininepost; chafeeshappy; embarrassing; handwringers; hillaryshappy; hysteria; hysterics; justdamn; kneejerkingfreepers; leersheltoniv; michaeltaylor; notasininepost; ridiculous; ruling; schumershappy; scotus; teddyshappy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-216 next last
To: FerdieMurphy; NautiNurse; xsmommy
Your credibility doesn't smell very nice either.


141 posted on 02/03/2006 10:14:17 PM PST by Howlin (Why don't you just report the news, instead of what might be the news? - Donald Rumsfeld 1/25/2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: onyx

No, I am saying that the President will himself initiate a Souter II appointment, particularly, if in 2007 (assuming a vacancy, perhaps Stevens) he thinks he is so weak that he has no choice but to compromise from the start. I hope that I am wrong.


142 posted on 02/03/2006 10:14:57 PM PST by Theodore R. (Cowardice is forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: California Patriot
I have to make up for all the complacency on our side.

The reaction to Harriet Miers, which produced Alito's nomination, is now considered complacency? Wow.
143 posted on 02/03/2006 10:15:50 PM PST by Terpfen (72-25: The Democrats mounted a failibuster!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Krankor

I'm just curious. Did you get your screen name from, "Prince of Space?"


144 posted on 02/03/2006 10:17:48 PM PST by RandallFlagg (Roll your own cigarettes! You'll save $$$ and smoke less!(Magnetic bumper stickers-click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.


GWB will NEVER nominate a Souter-type. He's the last man who will ever make his father's mistake.


145 posted on 02/03/2006 10:19:01 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

There was complacency among some about Miers, and there is complacency now about the Alito confirmation. The kind of people who complained about that first, horrible appointment are the kind of people who get told to "breathe." Good thing they weren't discouraged by this cheap name-calling.

Alito is only a down payment on a conservative court -- he's a fourth vote, not a fifth. And I think even in Alito's case, there is cause for concern, however modest.

We need one more opening, and it needs to be filled with someone at least as good. In addition, Scalia is old and fat. Sorry, but he is. I doubt that he has another 10 years. He needs to decide whether he wants to risk being replaced by the Witch, or any other Rat. If he makes the wise decision and retires in 2007, will he be replaced by someone equally strong? I'm not prepared to assume that, especially given the Prez's notorious political correctness, and the Miers disaster.

Yes, we made some progress with Alito. But we still have a long way to go.


146 posted on 02/03/2006 10:21:12 PM PST by California Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg

Go to my profile and click on my pic.


147 posted on 02/03/2006 10:23:27 PM PST by Krankor (T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Krankor

ROTFLMAO!! I knew you were one and the same.HAAA............HAA......HAA............HAAAAA.....HAAA!

(and your weapons have no effect on me)


148 posted on 02/03/2006 10:45:51 PM PST by RandallFlagg (Roll your own cigarettes! You'll save $$$ and smoke less!(Magnetic bumper stickers-click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
Your inference that I am ignorant shows that you know nothing about proper discourse between FR members.

First of all, it is a correct observation, and second of all, I'm not sure someone who hasn't even been here a year should be lecturing people on FR etiquette.

149 posted on 02/03/2006 10:50:41 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
Mincing words like procedural with substantive is sophomoric in this instance! The filthy child killer got a stay of execution. Just how procedural is that?

You are making yourself look really silly. Even after all of this, you still don't know what happened here, and yet you continue to comment. That's not very smart.

150 posted on 02/03/2006 10:55:06 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
You're a Wildcat all right. If posting and commenting to create intelligent discourse is silly then not many of us are very smart.

You are so smart, however, that I will be careful not to respond to your comments so that you may continue believing you're the smartest Wildcat in the world. And as far as the one you posted just before this one is concerned your observation is not correct and is unkind to the extreme.

151 posted on 02/04/2006 8:23:53 AM PST by FerdieMurphy (For English, Press One. (Tookie, you won the Pulitzer and Nobel prizes. Oh, too late.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: California Patriot

I agree completely with your analysis, even though you are from CA (Ha).


152 posted on 02/04/2006 8:30:28 AM PST by Theodore R. (Cowardice is forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

I told ya you shoulda picked Miers.


153 posted on 02/04/2006 8:31:37 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears; Howlin
"Unless the criminal has been charged under federal law (which in fact there shouldn't be federal laws for murder, etc. if it doesn't involved a federal official) the issue is up to the separate and sovereign states. "

You are dead wrong.

U.S. Constitution Article 6 -- This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

U.S. Constitution Amendment VIII - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

U.S. Constitution Article 3, Section 2 - The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.

This case was brought to the Federal Court, by a citizen of the United States claiming that the manner of death proscribed by the State constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, and thus prohibited to any State by the U.S. Constitution...the Supreme Law of the Land.

The Supreme Court has Constitutional jurisdiction over this case.

Your argument would in fact set up a situation where a State could freely violate a citizen's Constitutional rights under the guise of State's Rights...no State has the right to violate the Constitutional rights of its citizens.

154 posted on 02/04/2006 10:27:36 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Alito said in his hearings that he favored review of death penalty cases, and even said that he would provide the fifth vote as a matter of judicial courtesy if that situation were to arise. He's doing what he said he'd do.

I'm sorry, where is the "judicial courtesy" law written? Where will his "judicial courtesy" take him on other important issues, pick one, any one?

IOW, he showed his hand in the hearings, the lawyers called, they win, we lose.

155 posted on 02/04/2006 10:43:19 AM PST by lewislynn (Fairtax = lies, hope, wishful thinking and conjecture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
You are dead wrong.

Post 1925 perhaps I am. However under the intent of the Constitution and the Framers, the Amendments applied only to the citizens of the respective states in accordance to their relationship with the national government.

Even under the Fourteenth Amendment the 8th Amendment to the Constitution was not 'incorporated' until 1925

Your argument would in fact set up a situation where a State could freely violate a citizen's Constitutional rights under the guise of State's Rights...no State has the right to violate the Constitutional rights of its citizens.

Hmmm, what did SCOTUS say in Pervear (1866)? Let me quote it for you shall I?

"Of this proposition it is enough to say that the article of the Constitution relied upon in support of it does not apply to State but to National legislation."

Only after 1925, after an activist Court 'found' this limitation on the states did the 8th Amendment apply at the state level.

But I do realize 'conservatives' support activist courts when it suits their needs, eh?

156 posted on 02/04/2006 10:48:26 AM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

He gets trashed endlessly during the questioning period. Then, when his first decision, after a mere hours on the bench, appears at odds with Conservatives but is exactly what he said he would do if it came up, the media can't wait to trash him for that as well.

Looks to me that we just might have gotten a man of integrity on the bench, finally.


157 posted on 02/04/2006 10:56:24 AM PST by DakotaRed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
The filthy child killer got a stay of execution

But, he did not get a commutation. A stay is only a postponement until legal issues brought up may be decided upon.

Once decided upon, it will do the anti-death penalty wackos no good to file the same charges again, as they do with nearly every death penalty case.

This slime ball may live a little longer (yes, longer than he deserves), but in the end, it just may result in other death penalty cases not being drug out as long over the same claims.

158 posted on 02/04/2006 11:08:15 AM PST by DakotaRed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
If posting and commenting to create intelligent discourse is silly then not many of us are very smart.

Comments should be based on facts for the discourse to be intelligent. Yours are clearly not fact-based.

159 posted on 02/04/2006 11:19:31 AM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

Moreover, the stay was not issued by the Supreme Court, but by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals - but the poster keeps insisting it was the SCOTUS and Alito that issued the stay.


160 posted on 02/04/2006 11:21:10 AM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-216 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson