|
Scalia, concurring: posted:The response is also familiar: A vocal minority of the Court, waving over their heads a ream of the most recent abolitionist studies (a superabundant genre) as though they have discovered the lost folios of Shakespeare, insist that now, at long last, the death penalty must be abolished for good. Mind you, not once in the history of the American Republic has this Court ever suggested the death penalty is categorically impermissible.
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:08 |
|
So... The court is implying they agree the drug is cruel and unusual, but since there aren't any alternatives, its a 'whelp oh well, gently caress you' sort of thing? 
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:No, Midazolam is the only sedative the states can get their hands on, because the more powerful and effective sedatives have been made unavailable to the states for executions by anti-death penalty advocates. They only looked at barbituates though, I don't understand why they don't just use propofol.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Devor posted:From Scotusblog: I guess the important distinction here is whether something can be judged cruel and unusual in the abstract, or whether it should be judged cruel and unusual compared to all possible alternatives. I had never really thought about that before, but it sorta makes sense. Basically, the court has ruled that the anti-death penalty side can't end the death penalty by making sure all methods are cruel and unusual, by definition, at least one available method has to be acceptable compared to all others, even if it means a firing squad is the best available alternative.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:I guess the important distinction here is whether something can be judged cruel and unusual in the abstract, or whether it should be judged cruel and unusual compared to all possible alternatives. I had never really thought about that before, but it sorta makes sense. gently caress, that's grim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:They only looked at barbituates though, I don't understand why they don't just use propofol. Neither side brought it up. The states want to use what is written in their law, and the other side sure as hell doesn't want to bring it up because they don't want their clients to die, they only brought up "acceptable" alternatives that they knew the states did not have access to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
A note on Fisher - Justice Kagan recused herself from consideration of the petition. Just like last time, she will recuse herself it seems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
Mr. Fowl posted:gently caress, that's grim. The death penalty is constitutional and that was not in question in this case (with the exception of 2 justices). Given that its not "cruel and unusual" in general then they have to show that the current method is "cruel and unusual" compared to other methods of execution and they apparently didn't do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Watermelon Daiquiri posted:So... The court is implying they agree the drug is cruel and unusual, but since there aren't any alternatives, its a 'whelp oh well, gently caress you' sort of thing? No. The court is stating that since barbiturate protocols are constitutional, the inmates would have to prove that midazolam is cruel and unusual in comparison to the barbiturate protocols, and that they failed to do so. The Court said they had to identify an alternative protocol, which the petitioners argued they didn't have to do and shouldn't have to do. I have to say, it's kind of hosed up to make the prisoner argue for an alternative instead of placing that burden on the state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:They only looked at barbituates though, I don't understand why they don't just use propofol. They were, the EU said they would ban shipments of Propfol immediately if it was used that way, the medical community poo poo their pants and said it would be disastrous for the US medical system if they did that so they backed off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No. The court is stating that since barbiturate protocols are constitutional, the inmates would have to prove that midazolam is cruel and unusual in comparison to the barbiturate protocols, and that they failed to do so. The Court said they had to identify an alternative protocol, which the petitioners argued they didn't have to do and shouldn't have to do. Scalia's angry victory lap of a concurrence basically says "You can't kill the death penalty by individually finding each method cruel and unusual, quit trying  "
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
Even though they no longer can legally force the end of the death penalty by making sure better methods are unavailable, its probably still in the anti-death penalty side's best interest to continue to force states to use crappy Midazolam, in the hopes that more botched executions happen to drive up public sentiment to end executions. Unless a lot of judges are replaced, it has to end legislatively, the supreme court is closed off for the forseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
 Ginsburg concurred
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
Wow, seems like the justices have really riled each other up, Scalia is now reading his concurrence in response to Breyer's dissent. Stop doing that, I want to know about the other cases!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
A follow-up on Fisher: Justice Kagan is the only justice with actual experience administering affirmative action.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
We have Arizona. RBG writing. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Ginsburg wrote the Arizona case! gently caress yeah
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Next up Arizona, with Ginsburg writing the opinion!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
RBG has the Arizona opinion, 5-4
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
gently caress Yes!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
The Arizona legislature does have standing to sue, but they lose on the merits. A commission can be used for redistricting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Woo
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:The Arizona legislature does have standing to sue, but they lose on the merits. A commission can be used for redistricting. Holy poo poo. Did not see that coming.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
HAHAHAH suck it GOP. Seriously I did not expect that at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Liberal victory?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
The human coin-flip, Kennedy, joins the liberals. The conservatives dissent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Wow, that's actually the one unexpected outcome this term. Well, that and Fair Housing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Phew, that's a relief.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
I wonder if you can read anything about AA from Fair Housing. It would be hard not to make the disparate impact argument when it comes to race and education with a short leap to AA being a remedy to it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Wow, that's actually the one unexpected outcome this term. Well, that and Fair Housing. And I would add Obamacare
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
It must be great to be justice Kennedy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
So can this ruling apply to other states with GOP stranglehold districting?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:So can this ruling apply to other states with GOP stranglehold districting? People were saying beforehand that it only really applied to Arizona and California.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:And I would add Obamacare It going 6-3 was unexpected but the rest was kinda obvious in retrospect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:So can this ruling apply to other states with GOP stranglehold districting? No, it made it permissible to take redistricting away from the legislature, but that's up to these legislatures themselves, or the electorate if a state permits popular referendums.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Wow, that's actually the one unexpected outcome this term. Well, that and Fair Housing. Fair Housing is a pretty big case
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:So can this ruling apply to other states with GOP stranglehold districting? They have to actually have a commission. The AZ legislature did not get a say because the people passed the law via a ballot initiative. States that don't have a ballot initiative process (or where its very hard) would need the legislature to decide to use a commission. Good loving luck with that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:People were saying beforehand that it only really applied to Arizona and California. Iowa has a commission too, but no one cares because they only have 4 seats
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:So can this ruling apply to other states with GOP stranglehold districting? Let's not pretend that it's only the Republicans who use gerrymandering, the Democrats just don't have as many opportunities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:08 |
|
|
A never ending train of 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:36
|
|
