http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/01/D8FGN8509.html

Quote :

"Alito Opposes Mo. Execution By GINA HOLLAND Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court's conservative 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."

If this already exists, i dont care.

2/2/2006 12:09:12 AM

ehh... i am not reading too much into this. Its just as likely that Alito didn't want his first act as a Justice to be ending some guy's life.

2/2/2006 12:10:08 AM

Alitowned

2/2/2006 12:22:57 AM

^^ I hope so, because the death-penalty is a states-rights issue...

2/2/2006 12:32:30 AM

another explanation is that he inherited all of O'Conner's files and notes so he just went off of them since he couldn't make such a weighty decision in one day...

i mean, i'm just guessing.

OTOH, he very well could be a stealth nominee. who knows. but i think its more likely to be one or a combination of my earlier explanations

2/2/2006 12:34:28 AM

Quote :

"I hope so, because the death-penalty is a states-rights issue"

what if a state decides to execute anyone convicted of Jewry. or Niggardliness?

States rights, mothafucker! And not a Got-Damn thing you can do about it.

2/2/2006 1:25:00 AM

^^ Maybe he's a judge and not a politician.

2/2/2006 1:31:55 AM

duh.

2/2/2006 3:56:48 AM

Actually, joe_schmoe, the constitution does explicitly forbid such absurdity. It does not even pass at the subject of executions.

2/2/2006 9:48:00 AM

Quote :

"Maybe he's a judge and not a politician."

Joke, right? Judges are politicians. Nobody gets elected or appointed to a seat on the bench without being a politician. Ideology dictates the judge's decisions (or, "opinions" as they're aptly termed). That silly thing they call jurisprudence is nothing more than a collection of ad hoc rationalizations intended to make the opinion look like it has a foundation in something other than ideology.

2/2/2006 1:30:55 PM

i still don't understand why wolfpack2k felt the need to make that point... If it was about my statement that Alito might not have wanted to end someone's life as his first act as justice... that's not a "politician" motivation, that's just being a person, and like I added, he probably inherited all of O'Connor's notes and didn't feel comfortable making such a weighty decision after having only looked at the info for a few hours

[Edited on February 2, 2006 at 1:37 PM. Reason : s]

2/2/2006 1:34:40 PM

^^^Where?

and executions are a federal matter. the whole equal protection under the law thing.

2/2/2006 1:55:39 PM

my professor told me he thinks alito will do everything in his power to overturn abortion

i was like damn i hate republicans

2/2/2006 2:14:03 PM

Quote :

"^^^Where?"

Quote :

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

I cannot execute some people for being alive and not even try to execute others committing the same crime.

Quote :

"and executions are a federal matter. the whole equal protection under the law thing."

How does this refer to executions? As long as anyone being convicted of 1st degree murder gets executed, then on what grounds does this make it a federal issue?

2/2/2006 3:14:23 PM

Quote :

"I cannot execute some people for being alive and not even try to execute others committing the same crime."

kind of like how its impossible to prosecute a store for selling 12% beer in Utah since its legal here in NC? oh wait a sec...

[Edited on February 2, 2006 at 3:23 PM. Reason : s]

2/2/2006 3:17:11 PM

where's our conspiracy theorist? "this was staged to make the left lay off"

2/2/2006 3:19:37 PM

Executions are state matters, but often times they are challenged under federal Constitutional provisions. Nevertheless, a federal challenge is the last step - the execution itself is sentence and carried out under the authority of the state government. The last time the federal government had an execution was McVeigh, I believe?

2/2/2006 3:20:57 PM

^^^ You do realize that is different, right?

The constitution says that the government cannot treat people different based on their race/sex/creed, these words are used explicitly. It doesn't say anything about people that are inside/outside your jurisdiction.

2/2/2006 4:22:08 PM

ummm

the death penalty is pretty mush slighted towards poor minorities being executed far more than rich white people

2/2/2006 4:26:51 PM

EXECUTE KEN LAY

2/2/2006 4:39:03 PM

LoneSnark:

Quote :

"I hope so, because the death-penalty is a states-rights issue..."

Quote :

"Actually, joe_schmoe, the constitution does explicitly forbid such absurdity [Re: my sarcastic note on racially biased executions]. It does not even pass at the subject of executions."

are you listening to yourself? or do you always rattle off incoherent and contraditory statements?

Quote :

"The constitution says that the government cannot treat people different based on their race/sex/creed, these words are used explicitly. It doesn't say anything about people that are inside/outside your jurisdiction."

on the contrary: nowhere in the constitution is there protection for "race/sex/creed".

and furthermore: the Constitution is quite explicit about jurisdiction, and describes it in detail. Try article III section 2.

dude, have you ever read the constitution? or are you just one of those all-around experts on everything?

2/3/2006 3:48:44 AM

YOU CAN'T TALK TO HIM LIKE THAT

HE HAS MORE POSTS THAN YOU

2/3/2006 9:51:40 AM

^^ You missed the point. So, let me come at it a different way. You are right, the constitution explicitly lays out the fact that independent jurisdictions exist. So the fact that stealing a ham-sandwich gets you life-in-prison in Texas but not North Carolina is constitutional because the states have the right to be different. However, the constitution does not explicitly forbid executions, unless they are "unusual punishment" and with a majority of the states engaged in executions it must not be that unusual.

Finally, it does explicitly state race/sex/creed. It was a sweeping generalization, but it is in there. Check Amendment XIV.

2/3/2006 11:02:41 AM

I'll give you some time to read the 14th amendment and then you can come back and apologize for being wrong.

2/3/2006 1:07:26 PM

DON'T QUESTION IT, POOPYJON

HE'S AN ENGINEER

AND DRIVES A DODGE STRATUS

2/3/2006 1:28:19 PM

No surprise...

Quote :

"DEATH PENALTY: Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked Alito whether, as a courtesy, he would sign on as the required fifth person if four other justices vote to stay an execution or hear the case. Alito said that seems to be a "very sensible procedure because I think we all want to avoid the tragedy of having an innocent person executed.""

http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/ap/2006/01/12/ap2447212.html

2/3/2006 1:43:28 PM

fucking liberal activist judges

2/3/2006 8:52:45 PM

Quote :

"Finally, it does explicitly state race/sex/creed. It was a sweeping generalization, but it is in there. Check Amendment XIV"

how about YOU read amendment XIV, since you obviously haven't: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html -- this amendement says nothing about race, but only about US citizens. In fact, it actually *excludes* all women from considerations of voting and representation.

my only question is, are you congenitally stupid, or do you work at it?

2/5/2006 12:06:28 AM

I just hope he sides with life on abortion too, if it should come up.

2/6/2006 6:23:19 PM

Quote :

"the death penalty is pretty mush slighted towards poor minorities being executed far more than rich white people"

maybe so, but only because poor minorities are committing more capitol offenses proportionally...

2/9/2006 11:04:33 AM

^LIE

Quote :

"maybe so, but only because poor minorities are committing more capitol offenses proportionally... cannot afford effective legal representation."

[Edited on February 9, 2006 at 1:14 PM. Reason : sss]

2/9/2006 1:07:44 PM

And the fact that wealthy minorities are more likely to be convicted of a violent crime than wealthy whites?

Or the fact that poor minorities are more likely to be convicted of a violent crime than poor whites?

Of course, why is everyone saying "minorities?" I don't see any Asians running around committing violent crimes (mafia excluded, of course).

2/9/2006 8:44:20 PM

racism

2/9/2006 8:49:42 PM

Quote :

"maybe so, but only because poor minorities are committing more capitol offenses proportionally and cannot afford effective legal representation."

Its obviously a combination of the 2.

And PS, the ratio of minorities put to death is not statistically higher than the ratio of minorities committing capitol crimes. Look it up.

[Edited on February 9, 2006 at 8:56 PM. Reason : 2]

2/9/2006 8:49:43 PM