Alito already disappointing conservatives

[D. Scarlatti]

Newly minted Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, during his first day on the job, sided with the "liberals" and against Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas, in voting to uphold an 8th Circuit stay of a Missouri execution:

There was no explanation for the final order leaving the stay in place -- the latest in a flurry of last-minute pleas from the inmate, Michael Taylor, and from the state of Missouri. Taylor had been scheduled to be executed at midnight. Like other death row inmates who have been filing eleventh-hour pleas to the Court over the past week, Taylor is seeking to challenge Missouri's use of lethal injection as its execution method. There has been no consistency in the results these pleas have drawn from the Court.

Alito's first significant vote: splits with conservatives

[Dingfod]

Ooh, burn.

[viscousmemories]

Any chance this was a softball decision designed to give him a chance to look fair without having any real significance?

[D. Scarlatti]

There are suits going on across the country challenging the claim that lethal injection is a painless method of execution in conformance with the 8th Amendment, so that may have been a factor. It's an example of the fact that judges, once they get into their lifetime appointments, aren't always as predictable as their erstwhile supporters like to claim.

[California Tanker]

I'd just like to point out that I've been on record (elsewhere, I guess, since I'm relatively new here) believing that I think he'll judge by the law, not party politics. Granted, a Stay of Execution is hardly writing new law, ultimately we have yet to see what he does on anything permanent.

There are suits going on across the country challenging the claim that lethal injection is a painless method of execution in conformance with the 8th Amendment

I find it curious, because that's exactly how lethal injection came to be in California. Used to be the gas chamber, but upon the demands of the human rights crowd, lethal injection became an option at the discretion of the condemned. Few chose it. Ultimately, California's courts decreed the gas chamber to be cruel and unusual, and mandated that the State use the more humane injection procedure.

What's this leave us with? Cyanide and a bullet to the back of the head?

NTM

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

What's this leave us with? Cyanide and a bullet to the back of the head?

Actually, I don't know why they don't use carbon monoxide. It's pretty easy to come by and the person breathing it just falls to sleep then quits breathing, no pain.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Warren

Actually, I don't know why they don't use carbon monoxide. It's pretty easy to come by and the person breathing it just falls to sleep then quits breathing, no pain.

Good point. I think overdoses of barbituates or opiates will be workable, too.

Also, there's hypothermia. Just strip 'em and drop 'em in a snow zone miles from any help. I hear it's quite a pleasant death. It's not cruel, but it is a bit unusual.

[Ari]

A better lethal injection system would work too. The current system seems to be designed to pacify human rights activists and is most likely not as peaceful as it looks.

[ManM]

It's all an elaborate ploy to embarrass the democrats who voted against him. Obviously.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

What's this leave us with? Cyanide and a bullet to the back of the head?

I'm not 100% sure, but I think firing squad is still on the books as an option in Utah.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

It's not cruel, but it is a bit unusual.

No constitutional problem then, since it has to be both to violate the 8th Amendment.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

No constitutional problem then, since it has to be both to violate the 8th Amendment.

No, it's cruel too. The last minutes of hypothermia may be dreamlike, but there's some excruciating stages before that. Think of it as torture followed by lethal injection -- the next step in Abu Ghraib incarceration practices.

[D. Scarlatti]

Why do you hate America, Clutch Munny? You hate our Freedoms, don't you?

[ManM]

Besides, its not torture: it's a freedom tickle.

[MonCapitan2002]

I found it interesting that he sided with the "liberal" wing of the Court.

[California Tanker]

I find it interesting that any part of the court is described as 'liberal' or 'conservative.' I think it's a fundemental flaw in the system that it even is possible to split the court along such lines. Isn't the judicial branch supposed to be separate from the legislative branch?

I don't recall the Law Lords in the UK being ever described as such. Or the Irish Supreme Court for that matter.

NTM

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

I find it interesting that any part of the court is described as 'liberal' or 'conservative.'

I think it's extremely simplistic as well, and I only used the expression facetiously; in fact the entire OP is a bit facetious. 'Liberal' and 'conservative' are shorthand, of course, but shorthand for what it's not always entirely clear.

It's possible to categorize certain Justices as consistently over time voting one way or another on certain issues, that is, if you break down the issues and then analyze their votes, and then designate the result with one label or the other.

But I think the overriding point is that it's a bit of a fool's game to try and predict how a Justice is going to rule. You often read newspaper reports about the oral arguments, and intimations from the reporter that a Justice is leaning one way or the other. It can't be done, because sometimes the Justice is using the argument as something of an intellectual exercise, or even in some cases simply torturing the lawyer for amusement.

And there are exceptions to this as well. Scalia, for example, can often be observed helping along a lawyer that isn't making a particularly good argument, asking the lawyer leading questions to remind the lawyer where he's going.

It's easier to predict lower court rulings because they're bound by the authority of not only higher courts, but their own. Stare decisis tends to be more powerfully persuasive among the lower courts. As for the Supremes, the history is littered with unpredictable results, and especially Justices that have entirely shifted gears over the course of their careers, not only on individual issues, but in their entire approach to the Constitution.