High Court Overturns Death Sentences

AP ^ | 6-24-2002 | ANNE GEARAN

[Lazamataz]

With all these left-leaning decisions coming out of the Supreme Court lately, perhaps it is a good thing they declined to rule on the Second Amendment in the Emerson case.

[July 4th]

I think this mean about 600-700 people get off of death row. Damn.

[July 4th]

By the way, they're releasing cases like crazy now. The school choice decision should be out very soon.

[hchutch]

We need to get a Senate that will confirm one or two more Justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas to replace Stevens and Gunsburg before I'd feel comfortable with a Supreme Court Second Amendment case.

[hobbes1]

Monday's ruling concerned instances in which juries determined defendants' guilt or innocence and judges alone decided their punishment. The court held that such a sentence imposed by a judge violates a defendant's constitutional right to a trial by jury.

Hmmmm...Re-affirming Trial By Jury is now a leftist bent?

Not to mention the fact that reigning in the o'erweening power of the State, is decidedly a conservative thing...No wonder you guys have so much trouble with Bush....

[Cagey]

Justice Thomas voted with the majority on this decision. I believe he feels that a Death Sentance should be decided by a jury and not by the judge. I agree with Thomas.

[Sir Gawain]

Striking down judicial activism doesn't seem like a left-leaning decision to me.

[frmrda]

Actually I agree w/ this ruling. A judge should not be the seperate arbiter of life and death, unless the defendant has waived trial by jury, and had a bench trial. The Constitution gives the right to trial by jury. I see no reason that the death penalty portion of the trial should be difft.

So Ginsburg wrote the opinion. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while

[Lazamataz]

Hmmmm...Re-affirming Trial By Jury is now a leftist bent?

Please re-read: "Monday's ruling concerned instances in which juries determined defendants' guilt or innocence and judges alone decided their punishment."

They got a Trial By Jury. There are states, and circumstances in those states -- including a defendant agreeing to it -- that allow a judge to impose punishment. It must meet the 'cruel and unusual' test.

If you don't like that, change the law in those states. This is a narrowing of the application of the death penalty. I expect the SCOTUS to revoke the application of the death penalty, with the current trends.

Your personality-based implication vis-a-vis my feelings about George W. Bush has been ignored and omitted.

[Ingtar]

And how comfortable should we be that they are going to hear CFR?

[Lazamataz]

Actually I agree w/ this ruling. A judge should not be the seperate arbiter of life and death, unless the defendant has waived trial by jury, and had a bench trial. The Constitution gives the right to trial by jury. I see no reason that the death penalty portion of the trial should be difft.

I think it's a state issue, isn't it? I don't think this ruling has much impact in federal cases, since I'm not sure that they allow bench sentencing.

[Lazamataz]

Striking down judicial activism doesn't seem like a left-leaning decision to me.

States permit the practice. I'd think you'd want to address the issue at the state-level rather than impose the decision from the federal leviathon.

[Lazamataz]

We need to get a Senate that will confirm one or two more Justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas to replace Stevens and Gunsburg before I'd feel comfortable with a Supreme Court Second Amendment case.

I think I was more making this point, than talking about this particular decision. Thanks for seeing my meaning.

[Sir Gawain]

But when the state makes an error in reading the Constitution, the Supreme Court corrects it. That's their job.

[chachacha]

Hmmmm...Re-affirming Trial By Jury is now a leftist bent?

No, I think you meant to say that, the Jury who left your hero O.J.Simpson loose is re-affirming the leftist Jury bend.

[Lazamataz]

But when the state makes an error in reading the Constitution, the Supreme Court corrects it. That's their job.

I suppose. I retract my criticism of this decision.

But I still stand firm in my belief that the SCOTUS is unready to make a 'good' ruling per the Second Amendment at this time.

[goldstategop]

800 murderers get off scot free thanks to a U.S Supreme Court technicality. Way to go American justice!

[blackdog]

Why do we have this SC? First they decide that the IRS is allowed to just guess what a person's income is, now jury's become judges for the purpose of the really difficult decisions? What is next? The foreman has to pull the switch?

I suspect that the courts are beginning to see that there is a real movement in the judicial community to end the death penalty. I think judges don't have faith in the integrity of state's attorneys, police, and jailhouse witnesses. Sort of the wrong end to tackle of this elephant standing in the middle of the room.

[Lazamataz]

800 murderers get off scot free thanks to a U.S Supreme Court technicality

(I think that's another thing that bothered me)