Alito's First Day
Gina Holland of AP reports:
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court's conservatives in a death penalty case on his first day on the court.
Handling his first case, Alito sided with five other justices Wednesday evening in refusing to allow Missouri to execute inmate Michael Taylor.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas supported lifting the an execution stay issued by an appeals court, but Alito sided with the majority 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.
Reporters and witnesses had gathered at the state prison awaiting word from the high court on whether to go ahead with the execution.
An appeals court will now review Taylor's claim that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment, a claim also used by two Florida death-row inmates that won stays from the Supreme Court over the past week. The court has agreed to use one of the cases to clarify how inmates may bring last-minute challenges to the way they will be put to death.
Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor, who had often been the swing vote in capital punishment cases. He was expected to side with prosecutors more often than O'Connor, although as an appeals court judge, his record in death penalty cases was mixed.
Scalia and Thomas have consistently sided with states in death penalty cases and have been especially critical of long delays in carrying out executions.
Taylor was convicted of killing 15-year-old Ann Harrison, who was waiting for a school bus when he and an accomplice kidnapped her in 1989. Taylor pleaded guilty and said he was high on crack cocaine at the time.
Taylor's legal team had pursued two challenges -- claiming that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment and that his constitutional rights were violated by a system tilted against black defendants.
The court, acting without Alito, rejected Taylor's appeal that argued that Missouri's death penalty system is racist. Taylor is black and his victim was white. He filed the appeal on Tuesday, the day that Alito was confirmed by the Senate.
By Fred Barbash |
February 2, 2006; 5:40 AM ET
| Category:
For the Record
Previous: Swearing In at the White House |
Posted by: Jim | February 2, 2006 07:29 AM
I wish you were right. But if we consider Bush's team's political maneuvers, I would say that Alito's first decision may have been motivated to improve Bush political condition. Alito's record with capital is mixed, so it might be that this case in particular is not representative of his strong conservative leanings.
Posted by: An unlikely upset | February 2, 2006 07:51 AM
hi
ur
Posted by: | February 2, 2006 08:23 AM
Andy Rooney said it best on 60 Minutes...and I paraphrase...regarding the racisim claim made her. If the majority of henious crimes are committed by a particular race (white/mexican/latin/black/etc.), and the majority of that particular race are convicted and executed, it isn't racisim...it's the laws of probability!!!
Posted by: Don | February 2, 2006 08:33 AM
maybe Alito is coniving enough to want to formally bring this in front of the court, and once and for all find that lethal injection is not cruel and unusual punishment.
Posted by: | February 2, 2006 10:16 AM
Sam has blood running through his veins that goes back to a heart that beats! On his first day on the job, he is asked to deny someone their day in court so that the state prosectutors can rush that person off to the death chamber? No way.
A stay of execution isn't like a pardon, all that happens is that Alito gets to hear the whole argument and make a decision then. When this issue comes back before the Court, Alito will have his Clerks and other staff in place and he will be able to research the law and apply the law more carefully.
The whole ostensible reason for nomination Sam Alito is that he is a Judge who applies the law based on what it is rather than based on his desire to reach a certain result. He was just being consistent.
Posted by: Alito is also a person | February 2, 2006 10:18 AM
Ansy Rooney is another guy I wouldn't want on the bench of the SJC.
Posted by: | February 2, 2006 11:43 AM
I am deeply troubled. This does not bode well for the future.
Posted by: Machiavelli | February 2, 2006 12:34 PM
Why?
Posted by: slick | February 2, 2006 01:16 PM
Why?
Posted by: slick | February 2, 2006 01:17 PM
Why?
Posted by: slick | February 2, 2006 01:17 PM
The political nature of Alito's appointment is evidence that justice is never completely blind or fair. If it were, there would be no such thing as a conservative or liberal justice. Andy Rooney's remarks show that a jury of peers is no more fair in their thinking than a professional in the judiciary. The method of executing a death penalty isn't really relevant, since the death penalty itself is cruel and unsual punishment. Death cannot be meted out fairly and the act of killing is without benefit whether performed by an individual or sanctioned by the state.
Posted by: | February 2, 2006 02:55 PM
Last Post bitches!!!!!!
Posted by: Rick James | February 2, 2006 08:07 PM
Not quite - you lose!
Posted by: OJ Simpson | February 3, 2006 12:38 AM
Another Damaging British Memo: Bush Made Up His Mind On Iraq Two Months Before Invasion
The Guardian reports a newly-disclosed British memo provides evidence that Bush had made up his mind to attack Iraq almost two months prior to the war:
A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.
The new revelations demonstrate that Bush was deceiving the American public about his intentions in the lead-up to the war. On numerous occasions, Bush claimed he had not made up his mind to attack Iraq:
I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully. [3/6/03]
We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force. [3/8/03]
Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. [3/17/03]
This is just further proof that you can't take literally what comes out of Bush's mouth.
Posted by: i win | February 3, 2006 02:44 AM
This incident once again demonstrates that Bush's attitude and behavior is in defiance of legal constraints and the checks/balance efforts written into the constitution.
Posted by: beowulf | February 3, 2006 05:43 AM
Don ... the racism isn't necessarily in the race of the defendant ... it is in the race of the victim. Repeated studies have shown that people (of all races) who kill Whites are far more likely to receive the death penalty than those of any race who kill Blacks. This is the subtle racism that the media overlooks. The cure is far more difficult to articulate.
Posted by: Elliot | February 3, 2006 09:48 AM
After viewing the confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito and the partisan politics involved and once more ask "where are the moderates"? Looking at Mr. Alito's voting record, it's easy to see who he is and the Supreme Court Justice he will make. And to quote George Bush the Elder "if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck". Sam Alito is an ultra conservative and will promote the ultra conservative agenda for the rest of his life on the Supreme Court of the United States. The republicans are turning what is in all essence a job interview into a "good ole boy club" and the democrats have put him on trial as criminal.
Unfortunately too many Americans are relying on others to make their political choices for them and not getting involved to make intelligent choices on the own. The middle ground of the moderate is rapidly eroding, sometimes the liberal direction is best and at other times the conservation direction is best, but never only in one direction. The political spectrum for a democracy is not straight line, it is a circle with the middle ground of the democracy on top. Too far to the left or right brings about a dictatorship representing a minority. Hitler was far right conservative and Stalin was far left liberal, but politically they were in the same position and people of both countries suffered.
Posted by: DC | February 3, 2006 09:56 AM
I'm Sam Alito Bitches.
Posted by: Sam Alito | February 3, 2006 10:38 AM
I assume that Alito will be moderate for a while. If he came right out of his corner hitting hard, his patron Bush, would catch hell in the press. But if he let's a few people off, allows some reasonable decisions to come and go, then when they really want his ruling for political reasons, they will get what they paid for. This man is bought and paid for. If he suddenly had a change of heart and started deciding with the good and decent side of the court, Bush would have several cows in a row. I expect only the most extreme opinions from this judge.
Posted by: Randwolfe | February 3, 2006 12:57 PM
Can I just ask--was there no official ceremony in DC at the official retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor??? The first woman on the court who served for over 20 years retires and there's no (well deserved) honors???? I feel depressed and cheated.
Posted by: Judy | February 3, 2006 06:07 PM
Why don't you have a party for her if you feel so bad!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Da Prodigy | February 5, 2006 01:19 AM
What complete in utter hogwash from people llke randwolfe and iwin and others. I get the last post! So I am right as my name shows. What justice said it was okay to shoot an unarmed suspect who was fleeing in the back?
Posted by: right100 | February 6, 2006 01:32 PM
Three quick thoughts:
1) Read the post by "Alito is also a person". It is too soon to judge what this stay of execution really means. Commentary while the jury is out is just hot air.
2) The charge of "Cruel and Unusual" punishment is being taken to ridiculous ends. Consider, for a moment, punishments that were deemed both humane and ordinary during the period of our history during which the Constitution was written. That will put a realistic perspective on what ought to be termed "cruel and unusual".
3) People who post really ought to put in their own name. If you are going to ask us to respect your opinion and thought, show enough respect for it, yourself, to put your name on it. Anonymous blather strikes me as immature and perhaps a trifle cowardly.
Posted by: David R King | February 6, 2006 10:17 PM
you can say that alito is bought and paid for, but when bush gets out, what then?
Posted by: Zach | February 7, 2006 09:55 AM
Elliot.. The data on the race of the homicide victim is deliberately misused by media and advocacy groups.
The vast number of Black homicides are committed by Blacks. A Black jury will either free him using jury nullification or, if he is found guilty, the jury is not willing to sentence another Black to death.
This creates an intentional or accidental skewing of the data to imply that a Black death is not worth the same as a White death. I agree. Therefore, there should be MORE death sentences when there are Black victims, not fewer death sentences when there are White victims.
Getting rid of this red herring of using numbers rather than case-specific facts would result in MORE Blacks on death row.
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it!
Posted by: Jim | February 7, 2006 02:47 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Uh-oh..... Do I hear Souter II???? Wouldn't that be the greatest story of the year. Another closet liberal fools everyone and slides into the Supreme Court.