SCOTUS Upholds Present Method of Lethal Injection as not "Cruel and Unusual."
By
lawrocket, in Speakers Corner
Recommended Posts
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteI did NOT claim that he did. You STILL fail to read what I actually wrote.
That is what you are suggesting the SCOTUS do, reinterpret the law. So your point was that Einstein reexamined motion and wrote a better mathematical construct that was a more accurate and better suited to explain observations? Why would you offer an example that counters your own point? That's not a very effective debate strategy.
There is nothing wrong with the interpretation of the law by the SCOTUS; it's the law that sucks. Fixing that is a job for the Congress, not the SCOTUS.
Interpreting the Constitution IS the job of the SCOTUS. It means what they say it means, not what you or Lawrocket or rushmc think it means.
I do not see that today's (or next century's) SCOTUS justices are any less capable of doing it than last century's justices. Maybe they'll be better at it. Just like Einstein was better at interpreting the laws of nature than Aristotle.
We don't stick with Aristotelean physics just for the sake of "precedent" or to avoid chaos.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 23
QuoteRoe v. Wade was a ruling, while shaky, had legitimate reasons.
I disagree with it. I think it was a matter that was left up tot he individual states, and is a "police power" sort of thing.
However, there is some logic in the "penumbra" of rights that was descussed. The right of privacy, for example, is not in the Constitution. It can be inferred from the Constitution as a recognized thing.
Personally, though, stre decisis controls. And since I see no otherwise compelling Constitutional reason for overturning it, the ruling should remain until and unless the body politic does something to cure it. That is - amend the Constitution to ban abortion.
It won't happen, though, so it's a moot point.
Fair enough
Thanks
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteI did NOT claim that he did. You STILL fail to read what I actually wrote.
That is what you are suggesting the SCOTUS do, reinterpret the law. So your point was that Einstein reexamined motion and wrote a better mathematical construct that was a more accurate and better suited to explain observations? Why would you offer an example that counters your own point? That's not a very effective debate strategy.
There is nothing wrong with the interpretation of the law by the SCOTUS; it's the law that sucks. Fixing that is a job for the Congress, not the SCOTUS.
Interpreting the Constitution IS the job of the SCOTUS. It means what they say it means, not what you or Lawrocket or rushmc think it means.
I do not see that today's (or next century's) SCOTUS justices are any less capable of doing it than last century's justices. Maybe they'll be better at it.
Quoteand here lies the rub propessor. As I think many that are there today are very good at it. and since you dont agree with a current ruling, YOU think they are doing badly
Just like Einstein was better at interpreting the laws of nature than Aristotle.
We don't stick with Aristotelean physics just for the sake of "precedent" or to avoid chaos.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rehmwa 2
QuoteInterpreting the Constitution IS the job of the SCOTUS. It means what they say it means, not what you or Lawrocket or rushmc think it means.
Or the SCOTUS themselves.
QuotePlurality - Roberts, Kennedy, Alito
Concur - Stevens
Concur - Scalia, Thomas (and Thomas joined by Scalia)
Concur - Breyer
Dissent - Ginsburg, Souter
Apparently you are even smarter about constitutional law than the Supremes themselves.
That is so cool.
(I wonder if Justice Stevens, et al, knows more about physics?)
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteInterpreting the Constitution IS the job of the SCOTUS. It means what they say it means, not what you or Lawrocket or rushmc think it means.
Or the SCOTUS themselves.QuotePlurality - Roberts, Kennedy, Alito
Concur - Stevens
Concur - Scalia, Thomas (and Thomas joined by Scalia)
Concur - Breyer
Dissent - Ginsburg, Souter
Apparently you are even smarter about constitutional law than the Supremes themselves.
That is so cool.
(I wonder if Justice Stevens, et al, knows more about physics?)
Don't misrepresent my position - rushmc has that job.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rehmwa 2
QuoteDon't misrepresent my position
We need to find your position. Here are my thoughts - what are you trying to debate here?:
1 - You honestly are arguing that the SCOTUS should be able to change any law from the accepted original intent based on the judges personal views of it and if they can find ANY way to twist the law to that viewpoint (in violation of the constitution, and in spite of the clearly stated responsibilities of the legislature and the judicial)
2 - #1, but you only feel that way for stuff you find important. Everything else should be handled per the constitution
3 - You have a general dissatisfaction of the concept of legal precedent and think that any case should be judged without reference to past, related cases
4 - #3, but you might accept precedent if it's not too 'stale'. IF so, what's the expiration date? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years?
5 - Something else?
6 - I consider this most likely (though 90% tongue in cheek) - I think you consider that certain laws (and likely many defined by PC-left bias, but certainly not all) should change based on the context of the times, but are frustrated the legislature is so distracted with wars, creating special PC holidays, building pointless facilities, and spending money on other pointless crap, that they aren't doing their jobs on important laws. Therefore, you WISH (even though you know it's not constitutional) that the courts would overstep their bounds. This is because you consider judges to be highly educated and you value that much more than you value the rule of law. The legislature has proved themselves unable to do their true job, therefore there is no forgiveness to that lack of action, and some panel of unelected smarty heads should take over and tell us all how to live. Therefore, today's needed legislative work must be done in an illegal way by ignoring the laws and smudging them to align with your politics.
rushmc ain't got nothing on me
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
jcd11235 0
QuoteInterpreting the Constitution IS the job of the SCOTUS. It means what they say it means … .
Yes, that's true. And they have interpreted it.
QuoteI do not see that today's (or next century's) SCOTUS justices are any less capable of doing it than last century's justices. Maybe they'll be better at it.
If it is possible that they are more capable, it is equally possible that they are less capable. It is also possible that they have similar capabilities.
QuoteJust like Einstein was better at interpreting the laws of nature than Aristotle.
Yes, so he wrote a better mathematical theory. He didn't reinterpret what Aristotle said. The former is analogous the the job of the legislature, not the SCOTUS. The interpretation of Aristotle claims has not been reinterpreted. They still mean the same thing now as they did when he made them. However, demands for greater accuracy and precision have demanded more suitable mathematical theories to explain what we observe.
By the same token, the laws regarding capital punishment have been suitably interpreted. That doesn't make them good laws that serve well the needs of US society. I would argue that they don't serve society's needs well. But the solution is not to pretend that the laws mean something else. The solution is to change the laws in a manner consistent with the Constitution, which assigns that responsibility to the Congress.
QuoteWe don't stick with Aristotelean physics just for the sake of "precedent" or to avoid chaos.
No, we don't. Nor do we interpret what he said to be something different. New mathematical theories were developed, just as we need new legislation regarding capital punishment, not a new interpretation of old legislation.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteDon't misrepresent my position
We need to find your position. Here are my thoughts - what are you trying to debate here?:
1 - You honestly are arguing that the SCOTUS should be able to change any law from the accepted original intent based on the judges personal views of it and if they can find ANY way to twist the law to that viewpoint (in violation of the constitution, and in spite of the clearly stated responsibilities of the legislature and the judicial)
2 - #1, but you only feel that way for stuff you find important. Everything else should be handled per the constitution
3 - You have a general dissatisfaction of the concept of legal precedent and think that any case should be judged without reference to past, related cases
4 - #3, but you might accept precedent if it's not too 'stale'. IF so, what's the expiration date? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years?
5 - Something else?
6 - I consider this most likely (though 90% tongue in cheek) - I think you consider that certain laws (and likely many defined by PC-left bias, but certainly not all) should change based on the context of the times, but are frustrated the legislature is so distracted with wars, creating special PC holidays, building pointless facilities, and spending money on other pointless crap, that they aren't doing their jobs on important laws. Therefore, you WISH (even though you know it's not constitutional) that the courts would overstep their bounds. This is because you consider judges to be highly educated and you value that much more than you value the rule of law. The legislature has proved themselves unable to do their true job, therefore there is no forgiveness to that lack of action, and some panel of unelected smarty heads should take over and tell us all how to live. Therefore, today's needed legislative work must be done in an illegal way by ignoring the laws and smudging them to align with your politics.
rushmc ain't got nothing on me
5.
I see SC members as fallible, and subject to being overruled by subsequent SCOTUSes if the facts of a case warrant it. Each SCOTUS justice is as likley to have a valid opinion as any of his/her peers or predecessors.
If Stevens's opinion is that something is unconstitutional, he should vote that way. I'm sure Scalia would have no reluctance to state that his predecessors were wrong.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rehmwa 2
QuoteIf Stevens's opinion is that something is unconstitutional, he should vote that way.
He voted, in this case, that it was NOT UNconstitutional. In fact, he went out of his way to clearly note that and this why we are talking about it.
He noted a personal objection to capital punishment only. Since a judge's personal opinion does not define the content of the constitution, then all of this thread is moot. As was his statement, except as a clear lesson to beginners in the limits and duties of the SCOTUS.
Good for him for doing his job. Bad on him for making a deal out it when 6 others just did the job without grandstanding.
Glad we cleared that up.
I'm guessing that maybe you'd be more placated if the judges would make their cases based on the words directly in the constitution and emphasize related precedent to a MUCH smaller degree.
Perhaps you are more of a strict constructionist at heart than the rest of us realize?
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteIf Stevens's opinion is that something is unconstitutional, he should vote that way.
He voted, in this case, that it was NOT UNconstitutional. In fact, he went out of his way to clearly note that and this why we are talking about it.
He STATED his OPINION that it IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL but voted according to precedent, which is what I'm objecting to.
WASHINGTON - Justice John Paul Stevens, a key vote in upholding the death penalty 30 years ago, now says he believes capital punishment is unconstitutional.
ADVERTISEMENT
Stevens on Wednesday became the first of the nine sitting justices to say the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
"I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty represents 'the pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purposes. A penalty with such negligible returns to the state (is) patently excessive and cruel and unusual punishment violative of the Eighth Amendment,'" he said in a concurring opinion rejecting a challenge to lethal injections in Kentucky.
He said, however, that he will respect court precedents in favor of capital punishment, explaining why he voted against the death row inmates in Kentucky.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rehmwa 2
OK, so I read his whole brief. He goes on ad nauseum about the death penalty in general and his position on that. Lots of really faulty reasoning in some of it IMO. Other not so much.
Then, in this case, he notes that the specific method the case is looking at does not constitute 'cruel and unusual' - if there must be a DP, then this method is not C&U compared to other options. Thus the basis for his concurrence.
So to you, if he considers the DP to be C&U, then the method itself should not matter. Even if it were done by being stepped on by an elephant while having sex with a lingerie model (certainly "death by snoo snoo" is not cruel and unusual and, in fact, a very nice way to die.)
So, I understand your point, finally.
Still, then he has to invalidate either the stated allowance for a DP, or invalidate the C&U clause to get the sections to align.
Since both are in there, then clearly the DP was not considered C&U at all in the writing, but rather necessary for an ordered society. Though much of the quoted precedent is also rather goofy and antiquated as well. Still, in the bounds of the case, the issue was whether this SPECIFIC method is C&U, not the DP itself. So Lethal Injection had to be assessed relative to alternate forms of DP, not DP itself.
He still did it right. DP vs C&U has to be resolved by the Legislature, not judicial activism.
And he really did kind of make a snively deal out of it. cripes
I think excessive taxes are C&U, maybe the SCOTUS can enact the Fair Tax for us.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Then, in this case, he notes that the specific method the case is looking at does not constitute 'cruel and unusual' - if there must be a DP, then this method is not C&U compared to other options. Thus the basis for his concurrence.
So to you, if he considers the DP to be C&U, then the method itself should not matter. Even if it were done by being stepped on by an elephant while having sex with a lingerie model (certainly "death by snoo snoo" is not cruel and unusual and, in fact, a very nice way to die.)
So, I understand your point, finally.
Still, then he has to invalidate either the stated allowance for a DP, or invalidate the C&U clause to get the sections to align.
Since both are in there, then clearly the DP was not considered C&U at all in the writing, but rather necessary for an ordered society. Though much of the quoted precedent is also rather goofy and antiquated as well. Still, in the bounds of the case, the issue was whether this SPECIFIC method is C&U, not the DP itself. So Lethal Injection had to be assessed relative to alternate forms of DP, not DP itself.
He still did it right. DP vs C&U has to be resolved by the Legislature, not judicial activism.
And he really did kind of make a snively deal out of it. cripes
I think excessive taxes are C&U, maybe the SCOTUS can enact the Fair Tax for us.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
kallend 2,146
Quote
I think excessive taxes are C&U, maybe the SCOTUS can enact the Fair Tax for us.
Americans are not paying their way right now, so taxes are hardly excessive. Insufficient would be more accurate, at current rates of spending.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Quote"I have relied on my own experience in reaching
That part was after he said that he couldn't admit it. "My own experience" is another way of saying, "the record does not show this..."
Stevens also wrote, "‘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.’”
This is fiat. Plain and simple. Scalia put it best:
QuoteIn the face of JUSTICE STEVENS’ experience, the experience of all others is, it appears, of little consequence. The experience of the state legislatures and the Congress—who retain the death penalty as a form of punishment—is dismissed as “the product of habit and inattention rather than an acceptable deliberative process.” Ante, at 8. The experience of social scientists whosestudies indicate that the death penalty deters crime is relegated to a footnote. Ante, at 10, n. 13. The experienceof fellow citizens who support the death penalty is described, with only the most thinly veiled condemnation, asstemming from a “thirst for vengeance.” Ante, at 11. It is JUSTICE STEVENS’ experience that reigns over all.
Quotethe conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty represents 'the pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purposes.
This is the essence of the political question. "Social or public purposes." THis is why it's up to politicians.
QuoteA penalty with such negligible returns to the state (is) patently excessive and cruel and unusual punishment violative of the Eighth Amendment
But how so, since the death penalty is explicitly mentioned by the Fifth Amendment. Isn't that like saying
My wife is hotter than your wife.
rehmwa 2
QuoteQuote
I think excessive taxes are C&U, maybe the SCOTUS can enact the Fair Tax for us.
Americans are not paying their way right now, so taxes are hardly excessive. Insufficient would be more accurate, at current rates of spending.
so no one can understand your argument, all attempts to try result in you noting "other" is your argument, this one is hopefully close, and all you can do, rather than acknowledge it and continue, is to go off on a tangent?
no wonder no ones understands what you are trying to say - you don't want them to
and, excessive taxes and out of control spending go hand in hand - try to make the connection
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
rehmwa 2
QuoteStevens also wrote, "‘objective evidence, though of great importance, [does] not wholly determine the controversy,
OK - we're apparently letting this degrade to another DP thread now?
Then the above is the point that slays me. And it's VERY disturbing to see a SCOTUS judge even make a statement like that.
Objective discussions should be the only input to having or not having a Death Penalty. Or any matter of law for that matter.
And then Stevens continues with a plethora of non-objective criteria and actually tries to delve into the mentality of previous justices and attributes to their arguments that they also have some form of non-objective purpose in their decisions that he needs to counter. It's terribly lazy and doesn't progress his position at all.
Childish argument about the DP being 'revenge', etc are pointless and emotional - and he spends AT LEAST that much time on similar emotive/useless discussions as he does the more objective.
We are better off only discussing stats about the confidence stats of making wrong determinations; the ability to jail a criminal and to keep them out of society forever; and the need to make 'other' punishments more severe; the need to realign certain crimes to have zero possibility for parole. Then the DP can be phased out. The DP is a permanent verdict - it has to be replaced by something completely equivalent (in terms of protecting the public, cost, etc) as far as the effect on society is concerned.
As long as the rabid anti-DP crowd continues to be unable to rationally divorce their passion from the argument and replace it with clear objective discussion, they'll not make any progress.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
I disagree with it. I think it was a matter that was left up tot he individual states, and is a "police power" sort of thing.
However, there is some logic in the "penumbra" of rights that was descussed. The right of privacy, for example, is not in the Constitution. It can be inferred from the Constitution as a recognized thing.
Personally, though, stre decisis controls. And since I see no otherwise compelling Constitutional reason for overturning it, the ruling should remain until and unless the body politic does something to cure it. That is - amend the Constitution to ban abortion.
It won't happen, though, so it's a moot point.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites