The Eighth Circuit declined to rehear a case that would bar most Section 2 Voting Rights Act cases. Also: "Troubling" death penalty comments from the White House.
The White House death penalty comments and DOJ actions are extremely disturbing. I continue to hope for an end to the death penalty at least at the federal level. Some states like Washington have removed the death penalty. Hawaii abolished the death penalty in 1959 before it became a state!
Agreed on the Death penalty - to my understanding the coroner determined the subject was dead almost 1/2 hour after the procedure commenced, which is barbaric, if my understanding of what that portends is accurate i.e., it actually took him a 1/2 hour to die ? As for section 1983 - There are Constitutional Amendments that expressly address the right to vote and if a person acting under color of law deprives a person of that right then that person's claim is actionable under 1983. I haven't followed the case or the recent case law so I don't know what the person's claim is. As far as I know , sec. 2 has been interpreted to accommodate challenges to a "standard, practice or procedure", like a Monell action and the various "policy action" cases. Under the Liberal pleading standard if the courts as presently peopled still allow that, I would tend to agree that the case should have been examined to determine whether it could have at least been denied without prejudice. The SPM - particularly at Congress - likes to talk the talk but seldom walks the walk. O if we only had one more vote; see this is why why we don't have it. The latter phrase seems to be the more difficult of all to actually establish it's veracity.
The press statement was okay with me. It wasn't really notable. It was a tad more than vanilla.
She said it was very troubling. She said it reaffirms President Biden's deep (multiple deeps) concerns about the death penalty, "including if it is consistent with our values." Not just with how its implemented (the main force of the terms of the review in place now). Its very existence. The botched execution provides further doubts to the death penalty itself.
I guess you can parse that to suggest there is some doubt on the question as compared to pledge. Note the pledge. He would help to pass legislation. Well, that's not going to happen. That is actual legislation with this Congress. Where is the "I won't do anything at all as to executive action to help promote the death penalty" or "I will commute everyone on death row" etc.?
The other half is he will "incentivize." I don't know that that means. His Administration did put in place a moratorium. I guess that counts. Saying an execution is deeply concerning & so might be too. Continuing existing prosecutions? No. I think he said he will let the Justice Department have free reign. I said I opposed the Justice Department policy in the past. The proof will be what he does later before he leaves office. Governors, for instance, have been known to wait to the end to commute.
Anyway, what was the statement going to do? There is a study in place specifically in part studying the means of execution. The Administration is not going to jump ahead of it & conclusively say nitrogen gas and every other method is cruel and unusual punishment. I was not excited either way by the statement. I was mildly pleased since again it implies it is doubtful the death penalty is itself acceptable.
The White House death penalty comments and DOJ actions are extremely disturbing. I continue to hope for an end to the death penalty at least at the federal level. Some states like Washington have removed the death penalty. Hawaii abolished the death penalty in 1959 before it became a state!
The same folks who oppose abortion, support “Christian” values, guns and the death penalty.
None of this bodes well for our democracy🙁
Chris, I thought I had seen a
ruling from another court
about the VRA and this matter the 8th denied? Maybe it was just
discussion here? Help in
clarification please.
I have no comment on the
WH press secretary's remarks about the murder
committed in Alabama that
wouldn't be scathing.
Is the fact the DOJ is supposed to be arm’s length the reason that it’s still pursuing death penalty cases despite Biden’s attested beliefs?
I suppose SCOTUS will side with the 8th? Jane Kelly is a hero, wish she were on the highest court.
I'd like to ask a question about the VRA ruling. Can Congress add a private right of action to the VRA?
Biden was against it before he was for it...we heard a similar formulation previously concerning the then-Senator John
Kerry's vote on a military supplemental bill for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan..."I was for it, then I voted against it."
Uh-huh.
Agreed on the Death penalty - to my understanding the coroner determined the subject was dead almost 1/2 hour after the procedure commenced, which is barbaric, if my understanding of what that portends is accurate i.e., it actually took him a 1/2 hour to die ? As for section 1983 - There are Constitutional Amendments that expressly address the right to vote and if a person acting under color of law deprives a person of that right then that person's claim is actionable under 1983. I haven't followed the case or the recent case law so I don't know what the person's claim is. As far as I know , sec. 2 has been interpreted to accommodate challenges to a "standard, practice or procedure", like a Monell action and the various "policy action" cases. Under the Liberal pleading standard if the courts as presently peopled still allow that, I would tend to agree that the case should have been examined to determine whether it could have at least been denied without prejudice. The SPM - particularly at Congress - likes to talk the talk but seldom walks the walk. O if we only had one more vote; see this is why why we don't have it. The latter phrase seems to be the more difficult of all to actually establish it's veracity.
Execution-Troubling to say the least. How about barbaric and inhumane.
And the coup marches on regarding the VRA.
The press statement was okay with me. It wasn't really notable. It was a tad more than vanilla.
She said it was very troubling. She said it reaffirms President Biden's deep (multiple deeps) concerns about the death penalty, "including if it is consistent with our values." Not just with how its implemented (the main force of the terms of the review in place now). Its very existence. The botched execution provides further doubts to the death penalty itself.
I guess you can parse that to suggest there is some doubt on the question as compared to pledge. Note the pledge. He would help to pass legislation. Well, that's not going to happen. That is actual legislation with this Congress. Where is the "I won't do anything at all as to executive action to help promote the death penalty" or "I will commute everyone on death row" etc.?
The other half is he will "incentivize." I don't know that that means. His Administration did put in place a moratorium. I guess that counts. Saying an execution is deeply concerning & so might be too. Continuing existing prosecutions? No. I think he said he will let the Justice Department have free reign. I said I opposed the Justice Department policy in the past. The proof will be what he does later before he leaves office. Governors, for instance, have been known to wait to the end to commute.
Anyway, what was the statement going to do? There is a study in place specifically in part studying the means of execution. The Administration is not going to jump ahead of it & conclusively say nitrogen gas and every other method is cruel and unusual punishment. I was not excited either way by the statement. I was mildly pleased since again it implies it is doubtful the death penalty is itself acceptable.