by James Oliphant
The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday held that the lethal injection method used by the state of Kentucky and more than 30 other states doesn't violate the Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
The ruling, which could not be considered a surprise given the conservative majority on the court, ostensibly clears the way for states that have imposed a moratorium on executions in light of the case to resume executing prisoners.
Yet there was nothing simple about the decision, despite the 7-2 margin by which Kentucky's method was approved. In fact, in a 91-page, scattershot opinion, the justices disagrees substantially among themselves over when a capital punishment method may be challenged in court, about the medical evidence presented in the case, and even about the constitutionality of the death penalty itself.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Justice Clarence Thomas...The Hangin' Judge.
Posted by: JT | April 16, 2008 12:48 PM
There they go, playing God, again!! Now, they can stop wondering about why the rule of law is so totally disregarded in this country. They just sanctioned state-sponsored murder!!! Way to go, you enlightened ones!! Meanwhile, the young and the poor bear the brunt of this misguided opinion. What a shame!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | April 16, 2008 1:06 PM
Where does the Constitution give the federal government the right to take a life? Only an activist judge would legislate a ruling such as this from the bench. Just show me where the Constitution gives the Federal government this power
Posted by: john | April 16, 2008 2:31 PM
You missed the point, John. The decision involved KENTUCKY'S right to take a life, not the federal government. In effect, the decision says that the Federal Constitution does not prevent Kentucky from taking a life in this manner. Let not your liberal proclivities blunt your ability to think clearly.
Posted by: Bob S. | April 16, 2008 3:07 PM
YES!, JT. The issue is centered around 'Cruel and Unusual Punishment' not the constitutionality of the death penalty itself.
Let us not overlook the support of the other reliable conservative justices - Roberts, Alioto, Scalia, as well as Hangin' Judge Thomas, who understand and respect the venerable Constitution of the United States of America.
The State should have some interest in protecting its' citizens not actively engaged in violent crime. There are folks in Tx for whom the Death Penalty is just barely adequate. The State reserves this special gift for them, as duly earned, 100% effective on the recidivism rate for that particular indivdual. No need to send out a parole squad to make sure that they have not re-engaged in a new violent crime venture. People here have a chance of actually collecting a few social security checks at some point. That's kinda of how we roll in Tx.
Thank you conservative Supreme Court Justices.
Posted by: Scott - Houston, Tx | April 17, 2008 10:17 AM