NationStates Jolt Archive

No one is picking up on this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_go_su_co/alito_death_penalty;_ylt=Aj6AKSMyfMznFmYRfHOaCeBMEP0E;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--)? Alito isn't as conservative as was thought?

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court Justice
Samuel Alito split with the court's conservatives in a death penalty case on his first full day on the court.
ADVERTISEMENT
click here

Handling his first case, Alito sided with five other justices Wednesday evening in refusing to allow Missouri to execute inmate Michael Taylor.


Of course, the real travesty is that the argument against execution was that a mixture of drugs was a cruel way to punish a predator that raped and killed a fifteen year old girl. There isn't any discussion of his culpability for the act, only that he shouldn't suffer in a mild sort of way.

His victim, Ann Harrison, could not be reached for comment.

he didn't rule that it was cruel and unusual. he came down on the side that said no killing people when a court has decided to hear an issue in the case and issued a stay. the fact that this one was split at all should be more than a bit concerning.

No one is picking up on this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_go_su_co/alito_death_penalty;_ylt=Aj6AKSMyfMznFmYRfHOaCeBMEP0E;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--)?

I think I have seen this twice today already.

The reason why this isn't getting any press coverage except on the left-leaning blogs is because this wasn't a substantive case. Not only that, but I sincerely doubt that this was even Alito's decision. He's probably inherited all of Sandra Day O'Connor's staff and clerks, so he ruled the same way she would have on the issue because he wasn't up to speed on it.

That's all speculation, but it makes common sense.

We'll see how conservative he'll be when the next term comes up.

No one is picking up on this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_go_su_co/alito_death_penalty;_ylt=Aj6AKSMyfMznFmYRfHOaCeBMEP0E;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--)? Alito isn't as conservative as was thought?

Bah. One vote is not enough to show a trend...

Unless that vote was anti Roe. :rolleyes:

I'm sure Cat-Tribe is surprised. After all, Alito is supposed to be the Antichrist of Judges, and is 100% reliable on voting the way that Bush would like. :rolleyes:

I'm sure Cat-Tribe is surprised. After all, Alito is supposed to be the Antichrist of Judges, and is 100% reliable on voting the way that Bush would like. :rolleyes:

and what is to say that this isn't? after all, not letting the state kill him allows his case to move forward. which means that then alito and pals will get to officially rule that not only is the particular method of lethal injection not cruel and unusual, but that it isn't cruel or unusual enough.

and what is to say that this isn't? after all, not letting the state kill him allows his case to move forward. which means that then alito and pals will get to officially rule that not only is the particular method of lethal injection not cruel and unusual, but that it isn't cruel or unusual enough.

You don't look good in a tinfoil hat, you know.

You don't look good in a tinfoil hat, you know.

I dunno. He does have a certain je ne sais quois

Of course, the real travesty is that the argument against execution was that a mixture of drugs was a cruel way to punish a predator that raped and killed a fifteen year old girl. There isn't any discussion of his culpability for the act, only that he shouldn't suffer in a mild sort of way.

His victim, Ann Harrison, could not be reached for comment.
Wait. Do...what...did you just....the rapist's victim, Ann Harrison? The one he...raped and KILLED? Of course she's not available for comment, he goddamn killed her.

Let's not get too hopeful that Alito isn't the Conservative he's made himself out to be. Judging by the look on his face during the SotU, maybe he's still in shock.

Simonist']Wait. Do...what...did you just....the rapist's victim, Ann Harrison? The one he...raped and KILLED? Of course she's not available for comment, he goddamn killed her.

I believe it was a rhetorical device designed to carry the impression that no form of punishment can possibly be too cruel or too unusual for a murderer and rapist.

Simonist']
Let's not get too hopeful that Alito isn't the Conservative he's made himself out to be.

Yes, please don't get hopeful, because if you guys get hopeful that he's not that conservative, then I get worried that he's not that conservative.

You don't look good in a tinfoil hat, you know.

you just don't keep up with the latest fashion trends out of paris

I believe it was a rhetorical device designed to carry the impression that no form of punishment can possibly be too cruel or too unusual for a murderer and rapist.
Certainly not the same method that we consider 'kind' for other animals that are beyond our help.

I'm sure Cat-Tribe is surprised. After all, Alito is supposed to be the Antichrist of Judges, and is 100% reliable on voting the way that Bush would like. :rolleyes:

Not at all. This hardly defines the man.

Let's see how he votes when he has been in the seat and has time to review the case as Brian suggested......

If the trend continues then I will accept that I was wrong with good grace and be grateful for the descisions he makes.

If he starts moving to the right then I will be vindicated.

Heh. I just imagined Alito running around the streets yelling "I'm really a Commie! And there's nothing you can do about it! Muhahahahaha!"

Let's see--on his first day on the job, he rules, along with four other justices, to temporarily uphold the ruling of a lower court until the merits of the appeal can be discussed. If he'd ruled any other way, he'd have been a monster. He may well turn out to be one--I'd still lay better than even money that he will, based on his history--but this is no big deal in the overall scheme of things.

Heh. I just imagined Alito running around the streets yelling "I'm really a Commie! And there's nothing you can do about it! Muhahahahaha!"

:p

If he'd ruled any other way, he'd have been a monster.

like roberts

(scalia and thomas we already know and understand to be monsters)

like roberts

(scalia and thomas we already know and understand to be monsters)
Even giving them the benefit of the doubt, that they have background on this case and have made reasonable judgments about it (not likely with Thomas and Scalia, but I'm giving them the benefit, remember), Alito hasn't had that chance, and with a man's life hanging in the balance, and with two similar cases in Florida recently stayed on the same grounds, granting the stay was the only human thing to do.

Conservatives would do well to wait until he actually rules on the merits of a case rather than on a stay before they start judging what they got in Alito.

Executions, period, are cruel and unusual among developed nations. It's so weird that you even still have them.

Executions, period, are cruel and unusual among developed nations. It's so weird that you even still have them.

America land of contradictions seems like an apt title to me.

THEY'RE VOTING ON A PROCEDURAL ISSUE WITH AN EMERGENCY STAY THAT EXPIRES IN THREE DAYS ANYWAY. Sheesh. It isn't as if he voted to uphold Roe V. Wade before the ink on his confirmation had dried.

Executions, period, are cruel and unusual among developed nations. It's so weird that you even still have them.

That's what the people want. The death penalty has majority support in America. Frankly, the fact that the rest of the industrialized world doesn't have them any more is weird to me.

But that's a whole different debate.

We need more monsters on the Supreme Court.

That's what the people want. The death penalty has majority support in America.

In constitutional states, what the majority wants tends to be irrelevant to rights.

Frankly, the fact that the rest of the industrialized world doesn't have them any more is weird to me.

Not so much, to me, seeing as the death penalty doesn't work and, well, we have a very bad history of allowing the government to murder citizens.

But that's a whole different debate.

We need more monsters on the Supreme Court.

You need a better system than a constitutional Supreme Court, but, hey, there's a lot of better stuff you'd need. Baby steps.

That's what the people want. The death penalty has majority support in America. Frankly, the fact that the rest of the industrialized world doesn't have them any more is weird to me.
The death penalty system is convoluted and not well enough applied to be of any real effect.

We need more monsters on the Supreme Court.
Yes, death to Constitutional rights!

In constitutional states, what the majority wants tends to be irrelevant to rights.

Not so much, to me, seeing as the death penalty doesn't work and, well, we have a very bad history of allowing the government to murder citizens.

You need a better system than a constitutional Supreme Court, but, hey, there's a lot of better stuff you'd need. Baby steps.

Oddly enough, in America, what the majority wants is generally more in the way of personal freedoms and liberty than not.

The death penalty does what it should do - it removes potential dangerous elements from society so that they cannot harm anyone else. Europe definitely has a bad history of allowing the government to murder citizens so I can see why you wouldn't trust your governments with it. America hasn't been perfect on it either, but invalidating the entire system because it has worked poorly in past (despite the fact that it has been reformed and the protections for death row inmates significant) is irrational. We don't have 800 years worth of random "legal" hangings and beheadings to live down.

We've got the best system of government in the world, so I would disagree with your final statement.

His victim, Ann Harrison, could not be reached for comment.
O rly?

The death penalty system is convoluted and not well enough applied to be of any real effect.

Those are grounds to keep reforming the system until they convolutedness is gone, and the application is effective.

Yes, death to Constitutional rights!

Oddly enough, I'm more comfortable with "the monsters" protecting our constitutional rights than the rest of the court. At the very least, I don't have to worry that they'll start inventing new rights we don't need or restricting the rights we already have because they think its the right thing to do politically.

Oddly enough, in America, what the majority wants is generally more in the way of personal freedoms and liberty than not.

So, your appeal to majority/popularity remains futile.

The death penalty does what it should do - it removes potential dangerous elements from society so that they cannot harm anyone else.

You can do that without killing them, and also I was referring to how it isn't a deterrent, which is what often is claimed by Iran and Zimbabwe and the US.

Europe definitely has a bad history of allowing the government to murder citizens so I can see why you wouldn't trust your governments with it.

It's not like those governments weren't murdering colonists to North America.

America hasn't been perfect on it either, but invalidating the entire system because it has worked poorly in past (despite the fact that it has been reformed and the protections for death row inmates significant) is irrational.

Systems working poorly is what leads to their invalidation. That's kind of the whole point of invalidating something - it not working well.

We don't have 800 years worth of random "legal" hangings and beheadings to live down.

And, here I was, thinking those 800 years were basically the reason you became your own country...

We've got the best system of government in the world, so I would disagree with your final statement.

Pfft. You don't even have parliamentarianism. "Best system of government in the world." That's a bit funny, because you probably do believe that.

Yes, please don't get hopeful, because if you guys get hopeful that he's not that conservative, then I get worried that he's not that conservative.

I think he is that conservative...

But, I also think he is an intelligent man. But, so is Scalia. The difference is that from everything I have seen and heard about Alito, he is also a more mature individual than Scalia.

This is a critical difference, because unlike Scalia he is capable of understanding that the law may be other than what he wants it to be, and that his job is to uphold the law. Indeed, if he has a shred of self-respect, he should take pride in voting against his "preferences" whenever the strength of the arguments lead him that way.

It does take both characteristics to be a good judge. Less intelligent judges are less bound by the best argument because they are less capable of telling the difference. Less mature judges (like Scalia) are not bound by solid arguments because they make up their minds before they hear any arguments.

Of course, I still expect Alito's conservatism to affect his decisions in a wide number of cases. It is unrealistic and naive to think that a judge can be truly "objective"... indeed, to believe that one argument is necessarily better than another. But, if you read enough Supreme Court opinions, you inevitably come to realize that some kinds of arguments really are better than others. And if you have the maturity to admit it, sometimes you have to realize that the Constitution does not always say what you want it to.

The job of a judge is not to "make" the Constitution say anything, conservative or liberal. Rather, judges must--as best as any human being is able--uphold the Constitution and the law as they find it. If the law needs to be changed, it has to be done through the political branches.

As it happens, I think the current state of our "constitutional law" is atrocious, and it bears little real relationship to the intended meaning of the Constitution. Some will say, "but the constitution is flexible." Flexible, yes. But when we start finding in it positions that were not only unintended by the Framers, but quite contrary to them, we are no longer even using the Constitution. It is, quite literally, meaningless.

Realistically, the only way we can reground our constitutional law in the practical politics of the 21st century is to write a new Constitution. Unfortunately, I fear that hope is entirely unrealistic.

Anyway... my main point is that I think Alito is smart enough and mature enough to grasp these complexities and to behave, as a judge, in a conscientious manner: which means this...

1. When he thinks the law clearly supports a conservative position, he will vote conservative.
2. When he thinks the law is unclear, he will tend to vote conservative, but may not be entirely consistent. Call this his "zone of twilight," if you will.
3. When he thinks the law supports a "liberal" position, he will vote with the liberals out of a sense of duty.

Conservative Americans have been drooling over him because most of them are too immature to realize that the law does not always agree with them. Liberal Americans have been afraid of him largely because conservatives seemed so excited by him, and because liberals also have trouble understanding that the law does not always agree with them.

I think they will both be proven wrong.

How many appellate judges get overturned by a unanimous vote on the Supreme court?

How many decisions of appellate judges are the subjected to ridicule by the judges that overturn them?

I know that had both of these things happen to his decisions yet he get high recommendation.

There's more agenda in this thread than truth.

There's more agenda in this thread than truth.

As a sinning athiest may I make this one request?

Could you enlighten us as to what in this thread is agenda and what is truth?

I dunno. He does have a certain je ne sais quois
"Like a fine Renoir (waa), I've got that je ne c'est quoi (quoi!)
Like a fine Renoir (ooh la la), I've got that je ne c'est ..."

..Genius In France, Poodle Hat album from Weird Al Yankovic

If the trend continues then I will accept that I was wrong with good grace and be grateful for the descisions he makes.

If he starts moving to the right then I will be vindicated.
Red letter post!

His victim, Ann Harrison, could not be reached for comment.
Wouldn't she be dead?

I knew Alito was going to be somewhat liberal, but I wasn't sure how much so. I think we'll se quite a few 6-3 decisions now instead of 5-4.