Supreme Court - Lethal Injections OK
|
|
In a surprise to no one except Governor Tim Kaine, the Supreme Court today threw out the challenge to the constitutionality of lethal injection. It wasn’t even close! 7-2 vote, with former ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg standing in the lonely corner with David Souter. Kaine’s decision was even more foolish as the opinions are coming out.
Despite what some would have you think (cough Kaine cough), this was not about whether lethal injection itself was “cruel and unusual punishment.” It was about what might happen if one of the injections failed.
“The argument against the three-drug protocol is that if the initial anesthetic does not take hold, the other two drugs can cause excruciating pain. One of those drugs, a paralytic, would render the prisoner unable to express his discomfort.” FOXNEWS
Oh, the horror! Wouldn’t want a convicted cop-killer to feel any discomfort, now would we?
Chief Justice Roberts opinion “Because some risk of pain is inherent in even the most humane execution method, if only from the prospect of error in following the required procedure, the Constitution does not demand the avoidance of all risk of pain.”
The case came down to whether to used a 3-drug procedure or a single drug. The case was never about whether or not to have lethal injections at all!
Alito and Kennedy joined Roberts in the Majority opinion. Justice Stevens wrote a concurring opinion, but wondered if the “3 versus 1″ drug debate is just starting. Alito wrote that “the Court should not produce a de facto ban on capital punishment by adopting method-of-execution rules that lead to litigation gridlock.”
Justice Scalia, whose opinions I personally love reading, takes foes of capital punishment head on.
“There is a risk that an innocent person might be convicted and sentenced to death—though not a risk that JUSTICE STEVENS can quantify, because he lacks a single example of a person executed for a crime he did not commit in the current American system.”
I’m still waiting for that one, too.
“But of all JUSTICE STEVENS’ criticisms of the death penalty, the hardest to take is his bemoaning of “the enormous costs that death penalty litigation imposes on society,” including the “burden on the courts and the lack of finality for victim’s families.” Those costs, those burdens, and that lack of finality are in large measure the creation of JUSTICE STEVENS and other Justices opposed to the death penalty, who have “encumber[ed] [it] . . . with unwarranted restrictions neither contained in the text of the Constitution nor reflected in two centuries of practice under it”—the product of their policy views “not shared by the vast majority of the American people.”
Wow! and this is a concurring opinion! Even Ginsburg in her dissent didn’t attack the death penalty, but wanted better procedures for ensuring that those being killed were unconscious during the final lethal injections.
And this is what Tim Kaine was waiting for?
Former cop Delegate Bobby Mathieson kept his mouth shut, too, avoiding comments on why a Democratic governor would protect the life of a cop killer contrary to Kaine’s public pronouncements during his election.
There was no reason, other than Kaine’s personal politics about the death penalty, that preserved that cop killers life. And there’s no reason to move forward with what should’ve been already done.
First - all states stopped executions when the Supremes agreed to hear the case. Virginia was just one of many. In fact, rather than continuing to slander Gov Kaine he should be applauded for leading the way nation-wide and LIFTING THE BAN ONLY TWO HOURS after the Supreme Court’s decision. Other states are still reviewing the decision.
But, as always, it is more fun to try to gain some political points with partisan spin, truth be damned.
The concern was that the anesthetic had failed in previous cases and pain was caused. Accordingly, the opinion DOES demand greater controls over the drugs in order to decrease the possibility of causing unncessary pain. Thus, hearing the case, and having a moritorium on executions has served a purpose. As a civilized nation, and one that claims to endorse Christian values, we should all support any execution that is done as humanely as possible - after all, the end result is the same: one less human life.
It is also interesting that J. Scalia’s felt a need to personally attack J. Stevens for his supposed opposition to the death penalty even though Stevens joined in the majority’s decision with his concurring opinion. Clearly J. Stevens does not oppose the death penalty without reservation, or else he would have joined J. Ginsburg and J. Souter in their dissent.
Ragnar,
“Virginia was just one of many” - when I see people heading to a bridge to jump, I’ll call ya.
And as someone so concerned with truth, I never “slandered” Kaine. I completely challenge you to show me where I slandered the man.
Read the opinion, Ragnar. Singling out a justice or two to find those (who curiously oppose the death penalty anyway) who want stricter controls over the drugs used.
Read the opinions, Ragnar. It will help you from making such wholly insipid statements like “Clearly J. Stevens does not oppose the death penalty without reservation” if you read this:
As JUSTICE STEVENS explains, “ ‘objective evidence, though of great importance, [does] not wholly determine the controversy, for the Constitution contemplates that in the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.’ ” Ante, at 14 (quoting Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304, 312 (2002); emphasis added; some internal quotation marks omitted). “I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty” is unconstitutional. Ante, at 17 (emphasis added).
All states stopped executing b/c there was a question of law regarding the proper application of the death penalty - that is the cost of living in a Constitutional democracy with legal protections.
Are you a believer in the Constitution, or in mob rule? The only bridge here is the one you want to push the justice system off of.
While not speaking in the truest legal sense (after all, slander is oral), defamation of character is the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation.
From your previous post:
And when [Democrats] say they will “enforce the death penalty” and “carry out death sentences handed down by Virginia juries because that’s the law” (Kaine campaign ad in 2005), you know that they won’t.
When Democrats promise something that is not in keeping with their platform, don’t believe they’ll stick to the promise for minute. My question is really who is more at fault — the elected official or the people who put them there, believing the hollow promise, in the first place?
PS - Gov. Kaine did enforce both the death penalty and the law, he did so following the dictates of the Supreme Court and our Constitution, which, as the chief executive of Virginia he is charged with doing.
Ragnar, the only question was what happens if the anesthetic administered prior to lethal injection doesn’t work.
I hardly call that pushing the justice system off the bridge.
Really, cut off your caffeine IV, Ragnar. Calm down. Breathe. Read the opinions. Relax. Your brain will re-engage eventually.
“When Democrats promise something that is not in keeping with their platform, don’t believe they’ll stick to the promise for minute. My question is really who is more at fault — the elected official or the people who put them there, believing the hollow promise, in the first place?”
I didn’t vote for him…did you?
“PS - Gov. Kaine did enforce both the death penalty and the law, he did so following the dictates of the Supreme Court and our Constitution, which, as the chief executive of Virginia he is charged with doing.”
Wrong! The Supreme Court didn’t dictate anything to Kaine. He CHOSE to issue a moratorium. The Supreme Court hadn’t issued so much as an opinion until today. They didn’t issue a stay. Kaine volunteered.
And when the Court did issue it’s opinion, we were correct and you were wrong - one thing that’s always been consistent on this blog.
How was I wrong? All I ever said was that I support the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the rule of law. Gov Kaine (and the governors of every other state with the death penatly) stopped executions to await the ruling of the Supremes. This is normal procedure whenever a point of law is in question. Why are you so angry at the proper execution of the law? Once that ruling arrived Gov Kaine did the right thing, he followed it.
My point about you pushing the justice system off the bridge is that you don’t seem overly concerned with the niceties of our working common law justice system. This is the way the system works - it might be inefficient, it occasionally frees the guilty (and imprisons the innocent), and it may not feed your bloodlust, but it generally works to reach the right conclusion.
Where is the wrong here? The law was followed, proof that our system continues to work. Speaking of too much caffeine, you need to take a deep breath and accept the fact that angerier does not make you righter.
You really do amuse me with all of your righteous ill-directed indignation.
I support the Supreme Court and the rule of law, too. so WHEN the Supreme Court issues a ruling, THEN we can react to it. That’s the whole point!
The Supreme Court heard a case this term about whether the Second Amendment allows personal ownership of handguns. Should they be confiscating everyone’s weapons now while we wait for the ruling?
I’m not angry, although it’s cute how you like to make everything about me. I seemed to have missed in your frothing whether you voted for Kaine, since you said what he did was the voters’ fault.
And I have no bloodlust, my friend. just think! In all this time you tried to attribute horrible and vile things to me, you could’ve read the SC opinions and stopped sounding like an idiot.
[...] Bearing Drift: Supreme Court - Lethal Injections OK [...]
With the kind of legal reasoning you offer you’ll make a fine addition to the student body at Regeant… or perhaps to the Bush Justice Department… (eyes roll).
Seriously, why so angry? Although, I do always get a laugh when you get all preturbed and angry over me “making everything about you” - too funny.
I love it. Your last comment has one sentence insulting me and then one sentence laughing about insulting me.
If you think your pre-schoolish debating skills make me angry, boy are you on the wrong track. Ohh…connect me with Pat Robertson! I’m quaking in these boots.
But i’ll no longer ask if you’ll no longer tell. You should be used to that.
Well, I am learning from the master of prepubescent debating skills. Too funny.
On Regeant, actually I wasn’t connecting you to Pat Robertson (unless you support Mr. “9/11 was God’s punishment”?). Rather I was comparing your poor understanding of the workings of the law to Regeant, that terrible bottom of the 4th tier law school in Hampton Roads. Certain events over the last 7 years have made it obvious that many graduates of that institution don’t know the law and may never have seen the Constitution.
PS - to anyone who has an interest in understanding why BK was wrong from the begining, below is an article from last fall explaining why most (every?) states, including Virginia would declare a moritorium on executions following the Supreme Court’s decision to take the lethal injection case. (I won’t hold my breath for BK’s apology…).
From the article:
“I think this is a de facto moratorium,” said Douglas A. Berman, a sentencing expert at Ohio State University’s law school [SW should be proud, I'm referencing THAT school]. Since almost all executions are carried out by lethal injection, he said a halt “would mean the most profound hiatus in the operation of the death penalty in at least two decades.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/17/AR2007101701870.html
I just chuckle at how you don’t even know how to spell Regent.
So this was “The most profound hiatus” huh? Talk about hype….or more like wishful thinking.
The result was as I said it would be. No change. A bunch of moratoriums that accomplished nothing but giving more days of life to people who wouldn’t have given their victims the same courtesy.
I’m still wondering while people are still allowed to buy handguns, since the Supreme Court is reviewing a case on the Second Amendment as we speak now.
Different operation of the law. It’s a case-by-case analysis. It was profound to anyone on death row, or anyone awaiting justice for their loved ones…
(PS - I’m not defending the criminals, you seem to think I am. I’m not. I happen to disagree with the death penalty as a Christian on principle, but we are a federal society and where it is legal, it is legal. The law is the law).
Ok, Regent. If there is one thing I will never claim it is the ability to spell. I’m just fortuante to a) have spell-checker and b) have a wonderful (and published) fiance who can edit…
Ragnar, you don’t have a case-by-case analysis. You have an issue-by-issue analysis. If you agree with the issue (abortion) you don’t want a moratorium. If you disagree with it (capital punishment), it’s moratoriums galoriums!
It’s not what I want, it’s what is appropriate under the law. That’s the issue, respect for the law.
Frankly, my thoughts on abortion really aren’t that different from those on capitol punishment.