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'm with Mike, its time to forget what actually happened and
FREAK OUT....AUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
FREAKY FREEPERS FRANTICALLY FREAKIN FREEPEN!
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.
The vote in the Missouri case isn't a problem. He hadn't seen it before and therefore couldn't in good conscience reject it without a hearing.
But the pledge to provide a free vote to review death-penalty cases as a matter of courtesy, regardless of his own judgment, is terrible. One, it sets an awful precedent, however seemingly minor. The senators should be given no promises whatsoever. Now that they've been given a promise, it strengthens their ability and inclination to demand more promises of future nominess. Major political blunder by Alito. Two, it ignores the fact that there are four hard-left "justices" on the Court. If Alito is an automatic fifth vote to review death penalty cases, he is making it harder to carry out the death penalty by further entangling it in usually meritless litigation.
You've got to give the man a chance to settle in and get a sense of how things work.If we see him voting with that Marxist from the ACLU six months from now,then we'll know there's a problem.
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.
LOL
Posters have been freaking out for several days now.
Pitiful. But fun to watch and count the hysterics over a procedural matter.
I'll wait for a vote and an opinion when or if the Missouri (or similar) case reaches the SC.
Just kidding. He deserves a few more rulings and some time before we come to a final judgement.
Judicial "courtesy"?
All we heard was "the Constitution" and the "rule of law". Since when was being "courteous" the rally cry of conservatives to get a "conservative" on the bench So Alito places "courtesy" above the rule of law?
Bring back Harriet Miers!
This namby-pamby approach to the news that gets vomited out by the MSM has got us in the pickle we now find ourselves on our Southern border.
America is in sore need of a big wake up call. Screwing around with murderers for decades is too stupid! The Supreme Court should have refused to hear any further details about this convicted child killer.
i see you don't bother to respond to those that are pointing out your hysterical reaction to a procedural rather than substantive vote by Alito. your credibility suffers.
“ Although I have been on the US Supreme Court for less than 24 hours and since I do not know any details of the case, I should go ahead and let a man get executed within few hours and without hearing the arguments of the case so the uber conservatives will get their orgasm.” (Extreme Sarcasm).
Taylor has admitted he brutally murdered the lass.
LOL
somehow I'm NOT surprised you don't understand the situation here......
anything to bash the President eh Tread the troll?
Ironically, are relegated to anonymous posts on an internet forum.
"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."
Fine.
In which case it is not going to make a material difference if he lives a few months longer while constitutional questions about the means of execution are resolved and, ultimately, when his case comes before the Supreme Court again, for the Supreme Court justices to satisfy themselves that he is actually guilty, since they are the ones who will ultimately send him to his death.
He'll get his in the end. The people who judge him are, apparently, averse to killing people and don't want to make a mistake, don't want to kill unless it's necessary.
Seems like a very Catholic way to look at things.
I approve.
"Hangin' Judge" Roy Bean should have been hanged himself for several counts of judicial murder. Before you give the order to kill someone, you make damned sure YOURSELF, since it's your order what's going to throw the switch.
If these pundits had really paid attention to the hearings, they would realize by now, Alito is a man of his word and what he did in his first ruling is exactly what he said at the hearings.
See post # 22 by MikeinIraq. It fits you well.
Alito voted with the left-wing, pinko, commie "justices."
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.