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.
Exactly. Therein lies one of the problems. 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. The case should have stopped at the state's respective Supreme Court
FREAK OUT!!!
WORRY WORRY WORRY!!
SOUTER SOUTER SOUTER!?!?!?!
Don't even mind that this is a completely mis-reported piece, let's FREAK OUT AND WORRY THAT YOU GOT SOUTERED!!!!
you are wrong. period.
"I hope I'm completely WRONG...:(
"
You are.
The author is another Chicken Little idiot who can't decipher a fact to save his life. Just looking for a chance to put on the professional victimology wardrobe and rend his garments while screaming "betrayal." 'Sierra Times' should be a tipoff that what follows is likely tinfoil or hysteria.
And there's a sucker registered every minute, it seems...
LOL
Can you explain exactly what he said that relates to this? He was part of a 6 judge majority if I'm reading this right.
The guy had been a USSCJ for less than 24 hours.
Maybe he wanted more time to review a matter of life and death? He deserves the benefit of the doubt, esp since he did what he said he'd do in the hearings.
This is so stupid it is hardly worth commenting on. You people who are throwing a fit about this wouldn't be able to pass a basic civics test if your life depended on it.
The 8th Circuit wants to review this case and Alito voted to allow them to do so. You act as though he made a ruling on the merits - he did not. Get with it, folks.
Seems to me that in a death case it makes sense to go slow and make sure that the fellow is really guilty, and to consider the legal and constitutional arguments that may be presented.
Apparently it seems that way to Justice Alito too.
Good.
LOL
That's exactly how I feel on here sometimes LOL
"'Sierra Times' should be a tipoff that what follows is likely tinfoil or hysteria.
"
Yes. "Sierra Times" is often the source for postings here, but it is not a reliable source. Sadly, it often engages in distortions of fact to make a political point.
Commie Ron Kuby might have had a point when he said, "Maybe he just didn't want to kill a guy on his first day on the job."
And how long has this innocent been warehoused? But his "innocence" isn't in contention here. He thinks an injection is a cruel and inhuman way to be executed.
I say bring back Old Sparky and let these vicious killers go out in a blaze of electronic, sparking glory.
No, Bubba, if I happened to be an incoming justice on the Soopreme Court, I'd go with execution every time.
This is a procedural vote, not a vote on the merits of the death penalty (constitutionality of lethal injection). Stop being idiots. When we see his first opinion on a split decision of an important constitutional issue THEN talk.
Already Debunked.
Repeat after me...
"I will not produce knee jerk reactions. I will not produce knee jerk reactions..."
Rush explained it pretty well on Thursday.
Alito did exactly what he said he would during his confirmation testimony.
do you know exactly was argued and held here in this case? do you KNOW what alito voted ON?
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.