Supreme Court upholds use of lethal injections
From the Chron:
"The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the most common method of lethal injection executions, likely clearing the way to resume executions that have been on hold for nearly 7 months.
The two dissents don't surprise me (Ginsburg, Souter). But the 7 Justice majority seems a tad higher than I thought it'd be. Any thoughts?
"The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the most common method of lethal injection executions, likely clearing the way to resume executions that have been on hold for nearly 7 months.
The justices, by a 7-2 vote, turned back a constitutional challenge to the procedures in place in Kentucky, which uses three drugs to sedate, paralyze and kill inmates. Similar methods are used by roughly three dozen states, including California."
The two dissents don't surprise me (Ginsburg, Souter). But the 7 Justice majority seems a tad higher than I thought it'd be. Any thoughts?
posted by tj at 9:06 AM
6 Comments:
in addition to being old, they're evil?
Seven justices voted to uphold the lower court ruling, but there's no opinion of the court.
Goodw*n L*u this morning said (based on a brief scan of the opinion) that Scalia (I think, maybe it was Alito) just lays into the Stevens opinion. Said it was a good read...
Headline currently on the front page of nytimes.com:
BUSH WELCOMES POPE TO WHITE HOUSE, with subheadline: Americans “need your message that all of life is sacred,” President Bush told Pope Benedict XVI on the South Lawn.
Headline right next to the above:
SUPREME COURT ALLOWS LETHAL INJECTION FOR EXECUTION.
Can't make this stuff up.
I captured a screenshot of the NY Times, in case they change the layout.
Paraphrasing Scalia during oral arguments:
Who cares if it hurts? We're sentencing them to death, not surgery.
Post a Comment
<< Home