Sonia Sotomayor's first vote: Dissent

So much for the confirmation hearing spin that Sotomayor would be a law and order judge. She's not on the job one day and she's already voted consistent with her previously expressed liberal views which she tried at the hearing to hide or backpedal from. Big surprise - and more to come - just watch.

So much for the confirmation hearing spin that Sotomayor would be a law and order judge. She's not on the job one day and she's already voted consistent with her previously expressed liberal views which she tried at the hearing to hide or backpedal from. Big surprise - and more to come - just watch.

Posted by: Cappy | August 18, 2009 1:08 PM

And you know all the specifics of this case I presume? This guy should get the death penalty but not the guy who organized the hit? Is that what you're saying??

I loved how WGN Midday News reported this story today: Despite Judge Sonia Sotomayor's objections, Ohio put a man to death today.

Robert Novak: Journalist
Tribune Company reporting: The National Inquirer is better.

I think the Supreme Court’s actions with regard to the matter were confusing.
.
It only takes four votes for the court to grant certiorari. The order reflects that the court denied certiorari. As such, there were fewer than four justices interested in hearing the case on the merits.
.
And yet, there were four votes to grant a stay of execution. If four judges were not willing to grant certiorari, then why would they vote to grant a stay? A stay for what? A stay of execution is issued only to preserve jurisdiction over the subject matter until a case can be heard. That’s because allowing a sentenced prisoner to be executed would deprive the court of a necessary party and, thus, oust the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Were they being asked for a stay so the condemned man could seek review in a different court? (That doesn’t appear likely because he also petitioned for certiorari, which indicates that he had already lost all the way below.) In any event, what chance would he have if the court in which he was seeking relief wouldn’t grant his stay application either?
.
Mind you, I am not passing on the exact merits of the man’s claim (which, I believe, has now been mooted by his execution). His death at the hands of the State was and is a tragedy regardless of the reasons that got him under the needle.

I can hardly wait for the first oral argument.

Nino will be monopolizing the conversation, and all of a sudden--

Ex CUSE me! I'd like to ask a question, if YOU DON'T MIND.....

Not a lawyer, however, wasn't the mother's death an accidental homicide that occurred outside of the attempted premed. murder attempt on the son? How did that get capital punishment?

A Bush placed 3 of the 9 sitting justices on the Supreme bench. Still believe it was weird that John Roberts (Bush) was placed ahead of all the others to be the Chief Justice. Even though Poppy placed Sotomayor on a lower bench, am hoping that she keeps Roberts on his feet and in his Dockers.

And you know all the specifics of this case I presume? This guy should get the death penalty but not the guy who organized the hit? Is that what you're saying??

Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | August 18, 2009 3:20 PM

They should ALL get the needle.

His death at the hands of the State was and is a tragedy regardless of the reasons that got him under the needle.

Posted by: John W. | August 18, 2009 5:54 PM

The only TRAGEDY is the length of time this scum was still breathing before justice was done.....and the fact that he died so painlessly.

Vivian, murder committed in the act of a felony(attempted murder) is usually treated like 1st degree murder. Oops, I accidently killed the wrong person is not an accepted defense.

* * * * *
Posted by: ooddballz | August 19, 2009 7:39 AM
.
I’m sure you’ll maintain that attitude until you find yourself in deep trouble with the law. Then you will be whining about how unfair the criminal justice system really is. “I voted for that proposition ‘cause I thought it would make us safer. I never thought in a million years it could be applied to (fill in the blank: | me| junior| my husband| my wife).” I see this too often.
.
With regard to capital cases, you simply have no idea how unfairly juries are prone to convict, and to impose the death penalty, because of the way death penalty juries are selected. There are plenty of innocent people who once occupied death rows across the country, but who are now free, who can attest to this fact. This is also partially due to the fact that people have a tendency to express their fear, and favor the prosecution, by convicting and/or sentencing to death minority defendants, rather than reaching a verdict after an impartial determination of the facts. Trials are not engines for determining the truth in capital cases. They are merely longer versions of “Two Minutes’ Hate” from Orwell’s 1984. Wash out your headgear if you think otherwise.
.
To any fair minded person, the justice system should not stigmatize anyone with guilt unless they have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair and impartial trial; and the ultimate penalty shouldn’t be meted out except to the most deserving defendants whose guilt is certain, whose acts are heinous, and who lacks any redeeming qualities to spare him or her from death. But many courts have sent innocent people to their death. Some of the innocent, thankfully, have been spared. Unless you were there, and you know for a fact this man is guilty and deserving of death based on evidence you have seen and heard for yourself, you have no grounds to make such sweeping assertions in this case.