The dissenting justices wanted us to know this was a 5-4 vote. Also: The justices finally announced that they will be hearing Richard Glossip's death-penalty case.
I've been following ALL the Texas cases, and this is all a cluster f**k, if I may be so crude.
That any judge would side with Texas at any time on any of this demonstrates how profoundly broken our justice system is. Not just the Fifth, not even just SCOTUS...I cannot see how we're not hearing a resounding NO, THIS IS NOT HOW ANY OF THIS WORKS! from every other judge on every other court.
First of all I understand quite well the situation, so please don't open the conversation with a condescending remark. Texas is doing the Border Patrol's job. The mushbrain in charge is preventing the Border Patrol from doing their job, not Texas. There are perfectly maintained approved points of entry for the illegals to enter. They do not have to swim the river or cross concertina wire, so if they drown or get shredded, that's on them. I lived in south Texas, now live in Colombia. Down here they have travel stations set up to get them up to Panama. Same in Ecuador. I have seen thousands of Venezuelans over the past year and a half with signs begging for money to finance the trips north. It's been out of control for over three years now.
Hey, Mark, don’t reprimand someone as being “condescending” if you’re going to then follow up with personal attacks and dehumanizing language throughout your comment. Thanks.
Someone drowning while crossing is not capital punishment. Entering a legal entry point is not even a misdemeanor. As far as the kids getting taken away, I don't agree with that either. I believe they can all be returned or allowed entry together.
I was stating a fact. Texas is literally preventing the Border Patrol from doing its job. That you see this as 'condescending' is really on you.
Yes, the mother and her two children...it's all their fault they were desperate for a better life. Shame on them. They're probably no better than your ancestors when they sought to come to the US.
The buoy case, in particular...the Fifth set the standard for an en banc hearing. That they actually agreed to an en banc hearing in that case just rips everything away.
I’m trying to understand the Alito wing’s reasoning. If somebody was being lynched on a state park in violation of their federal statutory and constitutional rights, the state could deny entry to federal law enforcement based on state property interests?
When Justice Barrett was nominated, I read through some of her law articles, and I was legitimately frightened she was to the right of Justices Alito and Thomas. In her time on the Court, however, she has proven by words spoken and written to be a more traditional establishment conservative.
At oral arguments, she consistently conveys empathy, clue about what modern life is really like for families, and reasonableness. I don't agree with her politics or her religious views, but I sure do like her.
Agreed; I have been pleasantly surprised that she has cleared the absolutely subterranean bar I had set for her. If this sounds like damning with faint praise, then you're reading it correctly.
When Kennedy retired, I thought -- given the options -- she was the best of the admittedly not great choices. We got Kavanaugh for that seat.
I didn't think she was worse than Alito or Thomas. If that's the test, it's not that hard to meet. She has in various cases been more conservative than Kavanaugh. It's something of a 50/50 proposition. She is over twenty years younger, so would naturally be more up to date. BTW, in one argument she referenced "Calvinball" (Calvin and Hobbes reference).
I continued to be aggravated that they do not explain themselves in these important cases. There was another more run of the mill order today. This border issue one was a major issue. It deserved an explanation.
The usual line in news articles is that they had a "very brief order." Literally true but misleading. It makes it sound like there is at least some explanation to it.
Glossip v. Gross was decided in 2015. He lost 5-4. Just goes to show that is often not the end of the line. They put off this one for a LONG time. There is sometimes a complaint that death cases drag out & the blame is put on the inmate. Not always the inmate's fault.
The states were given back the death penalty in 1976 because they promised to be thorough and careful in meting it out. I have very little patience for complaints about how long it takes to do that (especially when the courts usually let them slide even when they don't).
I just realized something about Glossip v Oklahoma. The state filed a cert stage brief supporting vacatur. That means the Court will have to appoint an amicus to argue for affirmance. But the amicus must also address QP3 which is super thorny (imho) and which the state could very well win on ... even though the state doesn't want to win on it here.
Mark, you might be in the wrong place. This isn't a comment section for you to air your grievances with ... yes ... condescension. If you actually want to discuss the stories I'm covering, go for it, but cut it with this shit.
I believe you're right. I read your stack to get a point of view I don't agree with. I think I'll continue to read, but stay out of the comments. This country is so divided in so many ways that we are beyond compromise. Peace to you.
Regarding Mr. Glossip's case - if the state HAS rpvided an adequate and independent state-law ground for it's decision, and SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction, does that mean that AG Drummond is free to dismiss the case in the interests of justice?
If Glossip's story were a movie, it'd be called ham-fisted. Nothing demonstrates the depravity of post-Furman death penalty case law quite like it:
-The state has no obligation to demonstrate its method isn't torture
-Any alternative has to be proven better than the method that doesn't have to prove anything (especially wild this week, when SCOTUS likely decides the method they rejected for being unproven doesn't have to be proven)
Breyer (with RBG) wrote a dissent that questions the death penalty itself. Professor Bessler (adding an intro) published it as a book. Bessler (a scholar on the Eighth Amendment) is the husband of U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar.
The need to provide an alternative to challenge a means of execution [except, maybe, if you are challenging actual burning at the stake or draw and quartering] is rather absurd. It is striking that the Supreme Court has never actually struck down any means of execution as too cruel and unusual.
To my knowledge this includes cases involving the firing squad, electrocution, cyanide gas, hanging, and lethal injection. Next up: nitrogen gas (though given the state of the law, the challenge is not directly about that; it mixes in how Alabama screwed up the first attempt).
With apologies to the host of this space, no apologies needed for the trivia on my end.
Glossip is insane (and builds on Baze), but the "isolated mishap" idea from Baze might be what carries the day here. (I'm out over my skis on that, though.)
So what were the four dissenters thinking? That the border is Federal jurisdiction unless a Democrat is President?
Thomas and Alito aren't conservatives - they're Republican. There are no actual legal principles involved here, it's just Party.
I've been following ALL the Texas cases, and this is all a cluster f**k, if I may be so crude.
That any judge would side with Texas at any time on any of this demonstrates how profoundly broken our justice system is. Not just the Fifth, not even just SCOTUS...I cannot see how we're not hearing a resounding NO, THIS IS NOT HOW ANY OF THIS WORKS! from every other judge on every other court.
I just sit, shaking my head.
Just letting millions just waltz on in isn't how it's supposed to work either.
Actually convincing people that millions are just waltzing in is exactly how they want it to work.
You don't understand the situation. Texas is preventing the Border Patrol from doing its job.
Unless you prefer that the migrants be torn to shreds or drown?
5-4 is a win for now. Razor wire is not an acceptable
method of restraint from
crossing over the border.
If you want to argue border
legislation and reform, take
it to the congress. The Constitution delegates them
with the responsibilities, "both sides" to legislate
and reform these problems
that are then turned to DHS
to enforce.
While you're down in Columbia Mark, why not
look into trying to find ways
to alleviate the problems
within that country that
contribute to these migrants,
instead of counting the terrible numbers trying
to find a better life.
First of all I understand quite well the situation, so please don't open the conversation with a condescending remark. Texas is doing the Border Patrol's job. The mushbrain in charge is preventing the Border Patrol from doing their job, not Texas. There are perfectly maintained approved points of entry for the illegals to enter. They do not have to swim the river or cross concertina wire, so if they drown or get shredded, that's on them. I lived in south Texas, now live in Colombia. Down here they have travel stations set up to get them up to Panama. Same in Ecuador. I have seen thousands of Venezuelans over the past year and a half with signs begging for money to finance the trips north. It's been out of control for over three years now.
Hey, Mark, don’t reprimand someone as being “condescending” if you’re going to then follow up with personal attacks and dehumanizing language throughout your comment. Thanks.
“so if they drown or get shredded, that's on them”
That’s what folks about migrants getting their kids taken away too. “Shouldn’t have broken the law.”
Crossing the border outside a legal entry point is a misdemeanor offense. It doesn’t deserve capital punishment.
Someone drowning while crossing is not capital punishment. Entering a legal entry point is not even a misdemeanor. As far as the kids getting taken away, I don't agree with that either. I believe they can all be returned or allowed entry together.
I was stating a fact. Texas is literally preventing the Border Patrol from doing its job. That you see this as 'condescending' is really on you.
Yes, the mother and her two children...it's all their fault they were desperate for a better life. Shame on them. They're probably no better than your ancestors when they sought to come to the US.
The buoy case, in particular...the Fifth set the standard for an en banc hearing. That they actually agreed to an en banc hearing in that case just rips everything away.
Texas wants "sovereignty"? Well, bloody secede then, and take your beyond dreadful district court judges with you!
No, I'm not sure that's it. Texas is arguing that the feds do not have sovereign immunity here.
Quite right...skim-reading not recommended for us seniors!
(Also, in this case, the district court ultimately rejected Texas's request for a preliminary injunction.)
There’s something about “trespass to chattel” which I take to be the concertina wire. The Feds needed to cut the wire to access the border, right?
I’m trying to understand the Alito wing’s reasoning. If somebody was being lynched on a state park in violation of their federal statutory and constitutional rights, the state could deny entry to federal law enforcement based on state property interests?
As long as those statutory and constitutional rights didn't include their 'freedom of religion' or their 'right to bear arms', then yes.
When Justice Barrett was nominated, I read through some of her law articles, and I was legitimately frightened she was to the right of Justices Alito and Thomas. In her time on the Court, however, she has proven by words spoken and written to be a more traditional establishment conservative.
At oral arguments, she consistently conveys empathy, clue about what modern life is really like for families, and reasonableness. I don't agree with her politics or her religious views, but I sure do like her.
Agreed; I have been pleasantly surprised that she has cleared the absolutely subterranean bar I had set for her. If this sounds like damning with faint praise, then you're reading it correctly.
I took note that she got Counterman v. Colorado right. If only she understood forced pregnancy and childbirth to be as terrifying as stalking.
When Kennedy retired, I thought -- given the options -- she was the best of the admittedly not great choices. We got Kavanaugh for that seat.
I didn't think she was worse than Alito or Thomas. If that's the test, it's not that hard to meet. She has in various cases been more conservative than Kavanaugh. It's something of a 50/50 proposition. She is over twenty years younger, so would naturally be more up to date. BTW, in one argument she referenced "Calvinball" (Calvin and Hobbes reference).
Unless it has to do with her religious convictions, and then look out.
I'm just gonna say it, have they lost their fucking minds?
I continued to be aggravated that they do not explain themselves in these important cases. There was another more run of the mill order today. This border issue one was a major issue. It deserved an explanation.
The usual line in news articles is that they had a "very brief order." Literally true but misleading. It makes it sound like there is at least some explanation to it.
Glossip v. Gross was decided in 2015. He lost 5-4. Just goes to show that is often not the end of the line. They put off this one for a LONG time. There is sometimes a complaint that death cases drag out & the blame is put on the inmate. Not always the inmate's fault.
The states were given back the death penalty in 1976 because they promised to be thorough and careful in meting it out. I have very little patience for complaints about how long it takes to do that (especially when the courts usually let them slide even when they don't).
Yes, the shadow docket has become a big problem. The lack of transparency further undermines confidence in our system of justice.
I understand the justices, including the liberals, have strategic reasons for their silence.
But I still find it troubling.
I just realized something about Glossip v Oklahoma. The state filed a cert stage brief supporting vacatur. That means the Court will have to appoint an amicus to argue for affirmance. But the amicus must also address QP3 which is super thorny (imho) and which the state could very well win on ... even though the state doesn't want to win on it here.
Waaahhh. This stack is called LawDork, not KumbayahEmotionDork. So I believe in a process
of law. I have no idea whether those people were any better or worse than my ancestors, but that's irrelevant.
Mark, you might be in the wrong place. This isn't a comment section for you to air your grievances with ... yes ... condescension. If you actually want to discuss the stories I'm covering, go for it, but cut it with this shit.
I believe you're right. I read your stack to get a point of view I don't agree with. I think I'll continue to read, but stay out of the comments. This country is so divided in so many ways that we are beyond compromise. Peace to you.
Regarding Mr. Glossip's case - if the state HAS rpvided an adequate and independent state-law ground for it's decision, and SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction, does that mean that AG Drummond is free to dismiss the case in the interests of justice?
If Glossip's story were a movie, it'd be called ham-fisted. Nothing demonstrates the depravity of post-Furman death penalty case law quite like it:
-The state has no obligation to demonstrate its method isn't torture
-Any alternative has to be proven better than the method that doesn't have to prove anything (especially wild this week, when SCOTUS likely decides the method they rejected for being unproven doesn't have to be proven)
-It doesn't inherently matter whether he did it
Side note, with apologies for the trivia.
Breyer (with RBG) wrote a dissent that questions the death penalty itself. Professor Bessler (adding an intro) published it as a book. Bessler (a scholar on the Eighth Amendment) is the husband of U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar.
The need to provide an alternative to challenge a means of execution [except, maybe, if you are challenging actual burning at the stake or draw and quartering] is rather absurd. It is striking that the Supreme Court has never actually struck down any means of execution as too cruel and unusual.
To my knowledge this includes cases involving the firing squad, electrocution, cyanide gas, hanging, and lethal injection. Next up: nitrogen gas (though given the state of the law, the challenge is not directly about that; it mixes in how Alabama screwed up the first attempt).
With apologies to the host of this space, no apologies needed for the trivia on my end.
Glossip is insane (and builds on Baze), but the "isolated mishap" idea from Baze might be what carries the day here. (I'm out over my skis on that, though.)
Happy Groundhog Day.
https://medicineandjustice.substack.com/p/from-the-precipice-nitrogen-asphyxiation