Alito Sides With Missouri Inmate on Death-Row

[Cam42]

[quote]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.[/quote]

[quote name='Gina Holland' date=' Associated Press Writer ']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.

Earlier in the day, Alito was sworn in for a second time in a White House ceremony, where he was lauded by President Bush as a man of "steady demeanor, careful judgment and complete integrity."

He was also was given his assignment for handling emergency appeals: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. As a result, Missouri filed with Alito its request for the high court to void a stay and allow Taylor's execution.

The court's split vote Wednesday night ended a frenzied day of filings. Missouri twice asked the justices to intervene and permit the execution, while Taylor's lawyers filed two more appeals seeking delays.

Reporters and witnesses had gathered at the state prison awaiting word from the high court on whether to go ahead with the execution.

An appeals court will now review Taylor's claim that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment, a claim also used by two Florida death-row inmates that won stays from the Supreme Court over the past week. The court has agreed to use one of the cases to clarify how inmates may bring last-minute challenges to the way they will be put to death.

Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor, who had often been the swing vote in capital punishment cases. He was expected to side with prosecutors more often than O'Connor, although as an appeals court judge, his record in death penalty cases was mixed.

Scalia and Thomas have consistently sided with states in death penalty cases and have been especially critical of long delays in carrying out executions.

Taylor was convicted of killing 15-year-old Ann Harrison, who was waiting for a school bus when he and an accomplice kidnapped her in 1989. Taylor pleaded guilty and said he was high on crack cocaine at the time.

Taylor's legal team had pursued two challenges — claiming that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment and that his constitutional rights were violated by a system tilted against black defendants.

The court, acting without Alito, rejected Taylor's appeal that argued that Missouri's death penalty system is racist. Taylor is black and his victim was white. He filed the appeal on Tuesday, the day that Alito was confirmed by the Senate.[/quote]

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_death_penalty"]Alito Sides With Mo. Inmate on Death-Row [/url]

Maybe Bush got one right......Praise God. Gotta love Supreme Court Justice who follows the tennants of his religion......

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 2 2006, 12:14 PM'][url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_death_penalty"]Alito Sides With Mo. Inmate on Death-Row [/url]

Maybe Bush got one right......Praise God.  Gotta love Supreme Court Justice who follows the tennants of his religion......
[right][snapback]873096[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Abortion & the DP are both going down!!

[toledo_jesus]

I was impressed. While Scalia and Thomas are pretty staunch opponents of Roe, they often side with the state on capital punishment. I am still trying to sort out how I feel about the death penalty. It can't be all bad.

[Cam42]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Feb 2 2006, 02:27 PM']I was impressed.  While Scalia and Thomas are pretty staunch opponents of Roe, they often side with the state on capital punishment.  I am still trying to sort out how I feel about the death penalty.  It can't be all bad.
[right][snapback]873216[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It looks like Chief Justice Roberts is going to fit that mold too....however, we don't know what his ruling on abortion is yet......time will tell.

However, I am VERY encouraged by the view of Justice Alito thus far. 1 day and he is following his prudential judgment (conscience) quite well.

[Era Might]

Aren't the personal views of Robers and Alito irrelevant? All we keep hearing is that they are going to decide what the law says, not what they believe...

[catholicinsd]

: I've never been so happy :

[ironmonk]

There is nothing wrong with the death penalty. What is wrong is that it is applied to cases that it shouldn't be. Such as this one.

We need the death penalty for rare instances where it will be needed to protect society... the prime example is if we catch Bin Laden.

Also, it is not that this guy was going to die, but it was the method that he was going to die with is the issue. Lethal injection is cruel... the first injection paralyzes, the second crushes your internal organs, the third is the barbituate. If they are going to use lethal injection, they should do it painlessly like they do animals.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 2 2006, 02:36 PM']Aren't the personal views of Robers and Alito irrelevant? All we keep hearing is that they are going to decide what the law says, not what they believe...
[right][snapback]873236[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Their personal views influence their interpretation of the law.

[Desert Walker]

Alito! Alito! Alito!

[Era Might]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 2 2006, 02:39 PM']Their personal views influence their interpretation of the law.
[right][snapback]873244[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That's not the role of a judge. If their job is to interpret the law, their personal views are irrelevant. They are supposed to discern what the law says, and what was intended by those who created the law.

If they wanted to change the law, they would become legislators. We get all up in arms when "liberal" judges become activists. Do we hold Catholic judges to the same standard?

Maybe it's not possible for a Catholic, in conscience, to be a judge. I don't know. But we shouldn't usurp the office unless we're willing to play by the rules. All indications suggest that Alito and Roberts are willing to play by the rules, and hence, they don't intend to impose their own views, but to actually interpret the law.

Which, as I said, would make their personal views irrelevant.

Edited February 2, 2006 by Era Might

[Colleen]

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 2 2006, 02:47 PM']That's not the role of a judge. If their job is to interpret the law, their personal views are irrelevant. They are supposed to discern what the law says, and what was intended by those who created the law.

If they wanted to change the law, they would become legislators. We get all up in arms when "liberal" judges become activists. Do we hold Catholic judges to the same standard?

Maybe it's not possible for a Catholic, in conscience, to be a judge. I don't know. But we shouldn't usurp the office unless we're willing to play by the rules. All indications suggest that Alito and Roberts are willing to play by the rules, and hence, they don't intend to impose their own views, but to actually interpret the law.

Which, as I said, would make their personal views irrelevant.
[right][snapback]873253[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


A basic about human psychology - who you are (your personal views) will influence everything you read or do.

Personal views DO influence the way they read the law. Have you not notice how many liberals on this very board have a problem reading things into post that are not there... their personal views influence how they read.

Everyone is that way. You can't turn it off. No one can.

Maybe you do not understand the term "interpretation"?

The law leaves quite a bit of room for interpretation that is why it is so important to keep non-Catholic liberals out of judges chairs... and why it is so important to put real Catholics in those chairs.

[Era Might]

[quote]The law leaves quite a bit of room for interpretation that is why it is so important to keep non-Catholic liberals out of judges chairs... and why it is so important to put real Catholics in those chairs.
[/quote]

The interpretation of a judge has nothing to do with his own views. Yes, there is difference in interpretation, but this is a difference in how we view the law in light of the Constitution, not in light of our own personal beliefs.

I may think abortion should be outlawed. But that doesn't mean the US government does. As a judge, my role is to decide what the US government thinks, what the law says. If the law says abortion is allowed, then I have to rule that abortion is allowed. It's not about what I think of abortion. It's about what the law says.

If I want to outlaw abortion, I would become a legislator, and change the law.

Edited February 2, 2006 by Era Might

[cmotherofpirl]

I disagree that lethal injection is a cruel and unusual punishment. Its more humane than most victims get.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Feb 2 2006, 03:35 PM']I disagree that lethal injection is a cruel and unusual punishment. Its more humane than most victims get.
[right][snapback]873397[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I know an orthodox Priest who says that they need to be flogged and beaten then put to death...that we treat people too nicely who have deserved the death penalty.