Kagan's first vote on SCOTUS

[RadiomanATL]

This was a 5-4 decision - it was not just Justice Kagan who felt the execution should be stayed.



The fact that a condemned person "appears to die quietly" during a lethal injection excution, does not necessarily mean that he actually does "die quietly." The argument is, that the drugs that are supposed to pre-sedate, do not do a sufficient job. They only put the person under so that they appear to be out, but they are not. Then, when the killer drug hits their heart, they feel horrible pain. The pre-sedation drugs prevent the person from giving outward sign of pain - but he very much feels it. That's the argument.

I can personally attest to something similar. On more than one occasion, I have been given a drug that is supposed to knock you out. It didn't. I awakened in the middle of the procedure and experienced extreme pain. I was unable to indicate such to the doctor, however, due to the effects of the drug that had been given to me. In other words, it did not knock me completely out, but it did prevent my telling the doctor I was feeling pain.

You're arguing the pros and cons of the death penalty.

I'm saying in this instance there was no legal grounds to stay the execution based upon the evidence given by the defense attorneys.

I'm actually against the death penalty, but in this case the reasons given by the defense attorneys was a non-starter. SCOTUS did the right thing.

There must have been SOME legal grounds to consider the issue and continue the stay or else why would four of the five Jusitices have voted to do so?

Politics, and personal preference are not the same as legal grounds. 4 of them didn't get that. 5 of them did.

 

[George Costanza]

You're arguing the pros and cons of the death penalty.

I'm saying in this instance there was no legal grounds to stay the execution based upon the evidence given by the defense attorneys.

I'm actually against the death penalty, but in this case the reasons given by the defense attorneys was a non-starter. SCOTUS did the right thing.

There must have been SOME legal grounds to consider the issue and continue the stay or else why would four of the five Jusitices have voted to do so?

Politics, and personal preference are not the same as legal grounds. 4 of them didn't get that. 5 of them did.

I'll see to it that the minority is informed of your counsel . . .

 

[Ravi]

Thats pretty much all that needs to be said.

No legal grounds to stay the execution.

Needless suffering...there is that troubling history we have of not meting out cruel and unusual punishment.

The court has already ruled on that. And that is not what was being argued in this case. Based upon the evidence brought forth by the defense attorneys, there was no legal basis to suspend the execution IMO.

You must be reading different articles than I am. It appears the defense's opinion was that the drug was imported (thereby not passing US standards). So there was no way of knowing if the drug caused needless suffering.

Now GB is denying it exported the drug.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Needless suffering...there is that troubling history we have of not meting out cruel and unusual punishment.

The court has already ruled on that. And that is not what was being argued in this case. Based upon the evidence brought forth by the defense attorneys, there was no legal basis to suspend the execution IMO.

You must be reading different articles than I am. It appears the defense's opinion was that the drug was imported (thereby not passing US standards). So there was no way of knowing if the drug caused needless suffering.

Now GB is denying it exported the drug.

An import does not mean that it does not pass US standards. Thats a non-starter.

No way of knowing is correct. And the court based their decision upon a past ruling that said they cannot act upon simple speculation with no proof.

You want something stopped, better bring more proof than "we really really don't like it".

 

[SFC Ollie]

The five justices who voted for lifting the stay were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.; Antonin Scalia; Clarence Thomas; Samuel Alito; and Anthony M. Kennedy. The four justices who voted to uphold Judge Silver’s stay were Ruth Bader Ginsburg; Stephen G. Breyer; Sonia Sotomayor; and Elena Kagan, her first publicly released vote. They did not issue an opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/us/28execute.html

 

[theHawk]

What a surprise, she's a liberal hack who wanted to stay the execution of a murderer. Not because of any evidence that he might be innocent, but because of 'health concerns' over the drug being used to kill him.

And such an ABUNDANT amount of data to draw such conclusions - 1 vote...oh my....


We are DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED


Then, there's that pesky constitutional issue on cruel and unusual punishment...if the drugs aren't effective, then his constitutional right has been violated.


It's not like the guy has been given a pardon. He's still going to be killed. But the wingnuts are wetting their knickers convinced that we have a radical leftwing judicial activist onboard based on....errr....one vote...

It wasn't one vote, it was 4 - she sided with all the courts liberals.

And convicted criminals don't have constitutional rights, they've had their rights stripped. You must be one far out loony toon to think convicted criminals are afforded constitutional rights like the right to bear arms and the right to vote.

 

[Ravi]

The court has already ruled on that. And that is not what was being argued in this case. Based upon the evidence brought forth by the defense attorneys, there was no legal basis to suspend the execution IMO.

You must be reading different articles than I am. It appears the defense's opinion was that the drug was imported (thereby not passing US standards). So there was no way of knowing if the drug caused needless suffering.

Now GB is denying it exported the drug.

An import does not mean that it does not pass US standards. Thats a non-starter.

No way of knowing is correct. And the court based their decision upon a past ruling that said they cannot act upon simple speculation with no proof.

You want something stopped, better bring more proof than "we really really don't like it".

No one knows where the drug was imported from...that could certainly mean the drug wasn't up to FDA standards.

I did not see where the court based their decision upon a past ruling.

 

[RadiomanATL]

You must be reading different articles than I am. It appears the defense's opinion was that the drug was imported (thereby not passing US standards). So there was no way of knowing if the drug caused needless suffering.

Now GB is denying it exported the drug.

An import does not mean that it does not pass US standards. Thats a non-starter.

No way of knowing is correct. And the court based their decision upon a past ruling that said they cannot act upon simple speculation with no proof.

You want something stopped, better bring more proof than "we really really don't like it".

No one knows where the drug was imported from...that could certainly mean the drug wasn't up to FDA standards.

I did not see where the court based their decision upon a past ruling.

It could also mean the opposite. And from the article I read it was obtained from Great Britain.

"There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the drug obtained from a foreign source is unsafe," the justices said, and "speculation cannot substitute for evidence that the use of the drug is 'sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering'."

The high court used those words two years ago in a decision that upheld the use of lethal injections.

Thats the basis of the decision, that you can't use speculation in lieu of proof.

 

[Ravi]

An import does not mean that it does not pass US standards. Thats a non-starter.

No way of knowing is correct. And the court based their decision upon a past ruling that said they cannot act upon simple speculation with no proof.

You want something stopped, better bring more proof than "we really really don't like it".

No one knows where the drug was imported from...that could certainly mean the drug wasn't up to FDA standards.

I did not see where the court based their decision upon a past ruling.

It could also mean the opposite. And from the article I read it was obtained from Great Britain.

"There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the drug obtained from a foreign source is unsafe," the justices said, and "speculation cannot substitute for evidence that the use of the drug is 'sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering'."

The high court used those words two years ago in a decision that upheld the use of lethal injections.

Thats the basis of the decision, that you can't use speculation in lieu of proof.

I think, even if SCOTUS has stated in the past, that in death penalty cases you should be able to do so. After all, we are talking about a basic constitutional principle. Giving the state too much leeway is simply wrong.

The company in England denies supplying the drug.

 

[RadiomanATL]

No one knows where the drug was imported from...that could certainly mean the drug wasn't up to FDA standards.

I did not see where the court based their decision upon a past ruling.

It could also mean the opposite. And from the article I read it was obtained from Great Britain.

"There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the drug obtained from a foreign source is unsafe," the justices said, and "speculation cannot substitute for evidence that the use of the drug is 'sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering'."

The high court used those words two years ago in a decision that upheld the use of lethal injections.

Thats the basis of the decision, that you can't use speculation in lieu of proof.

I think, even if SCOTUS has stated in the past, that in death penalty cases you should be able to do so. After all, we are talking about a basic constitutional principle. Giving the state too much leeway is simply wrong.

The company in England denies supplying the drug.

I agree that giving the state too much power is wrong. Which is why I am against the death penalty. I am simply stating that due to past rulings and precedent, SCOTUS had but no choice to rule this way on this one very specific issue. The issue wasn't about the death penalty, it was about this specific drug used in carrying out the death penalty.

 

[Ravi]

Is that true, they MUST follow a previous ruling? I'm not sure exactly how it works.

But it does seem we at least agree on the death penalty.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Is that true, they MUST follow a previous ruling? I'm not sure exactly how it works.

But it does seem we at least agree on the death penalty.

I dunno, but if they didn't it would seem that it would invalidate the previous ruling. Thats why it's called precedent.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Facts are they split down partisan lines and the left did not think it was important enough to explain their vote.

 

[blu]

the anger and love of violence shown by neocons never ends

 

[zzzz]

Yet we used napalm in war causing undue pain and suffering.
CS gas against our own populace during the 60's and 70's and we tazer people today. All of this causes pain. I believe that executions should be by explosive device.

If there is any pain it cannot last but miliseconds and there is no body to bury!







'tis halloween afterall

 

[Ravi]

Is that true, they MUST follow a previous ruling? I'm not sure exactly how it works.

But it does seem we at least agree on the death penalty.

I dunno, but if they didn't it would seem that it would invalidate the previous ruling. Thats why it's called precedent.

True...but I thought it was that lower courts had to follow a higher court, not that SCOTUS couldn't overturn a previous ruling.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Is that true, they MUST follow a previous ruling? I'm not sure exactly how it works.

But it does seem we at least agree on the death penalty.

I dunno, but if they didn't it would seem that it would invalidate the previous ruling. Thats why it's called precedent.

True...but I thought it was that lower courts had to follow a higher court, not that SCOTUS couldn't overturn a previous ruling.

I suspect that they could do so if they wanted. But they didn't.

 

[zzzz]

The political ramifications of the drug coming from a European country is something to look at here. They are staunchly against the death penalty and if the ingredients for a death was supplied by one of them it is going to be looked at very hard by the goverment, unless it came from Tonga, who has the death penalty.

 

[Ravi]

No, the "liberal" judges pussed out by not offering an opinion.

 

[George Costanza]

You must be one far out loony toon to think convicted criminals are afforded constitutional rights like the right to bear arms and the right to vote.

Golly, that's just not correct. Sorry.

Check the Eighth Amendment, for one. (Cruel and unusual punishment)