I applaud Kavanaugh. This is not soft-on-crime sentimentality. It is proportionality, due process, and common sense. The actual shooter took a plea and got 20 years. Pitchford sat under a death sentence for decades after a jury-selection process the Supreme Court now says was constitutionally broken. At some point, the system has extracted every lawful pound of flesh it can justify. A retrial now means stale evidence, dead memories, vanished witnesses, old transcripts, and a state trying to recreate a case from another lifetime. If Mississippi wants to try again, fine. But the death case is over. Enough. Let law be law, not vengeance.
Gorsuch's final comment is puzzling, and I'm curious about why you interpret it as him being in lock step with the most conservative Justices on capital punishment. As you write, Gorsuch's comment was false. He lied about what his colleague wrote in the majority. A reader will likely get to Gorsuch's opinion after Kavanaugh's and realize that Gorsuch is lying. Why would he do this? Did he/his clerks write the opinion before seeing the final majority? Or is he just giving Republicans a quote they can use to criticize the majority? Such either abject laziness or dishonest cynicism should have no place in Supreme Court writings. (To be clear, we know Justices don't mind lying when it suits their purposes, e.g. Bremerton, and of course to make defendants' actions sound worse, but lying in the dissent seems so odd.)
Why do we have death sentences anyway? Individuals spend 20, 30,40 years in prison and then they decide to execute them. A death sentence should be done expeditiously in my opinion
I applaud Kavanaugh. This is not soft-on-crime sentimentality. It is proportionality, due process, and common sense. The actual shooter took a plea and got 20 years. Pitchford sat under a death sentence for decades after a jury-selection process the Supreme Court now says was constitutionally broken. At some point, the system has extracted every lawful pound of flesh it can justify. A retrial now means stale evidence, dead memories, vanished witnesses, old transcripts, and a state trying to recreate a case from another lifetime. If Mississippi wants to try again, fine. But the death case is over. Enough. Let law be law, not vengeance.
Amazing. I'm glad they got it right.
Gorsuch's final comment is puzzling, and I'm curious about why you interpret it as him being in lock step with the most conservative Justices on capital punishment. As you write, Gorsuch's comment was false. He lied about what his colleague wrote in the majority. A reader will likely get to Gorsuch's opinion after Kavanaugh's and realize that Gorsuch is lying. Why would he do this? Did he/his clerks write the opinion before seeing the final majority? Or is he just giving Republicans a quote they can use to criticize the majority? Such either abject laziness or dishonest cynicism should have no place in Supreme Court writings. (To be clear, we know Justices don't mind lying when it suits their purposes, e.g. Bremerton, and of course to make defendants' actions sound worse, but lying in the dissent seems so odd.)
Perhaps Gorsuch is polishing up his campaign for next Chief Justice …
How very odd! Chief Justice Roberts makes much of how America has overcome racism … and yet this Court, to its (disingenuous) amazement, finds racism.
The case is from the early 2000’s.
There was still racism then. It appears to have vanished sometime in between then and now…
Of course! Probably when Donald Trump ushered in the New Golden Age … white gold, that is.
Incredible that a case got past both procedural bar arguments and AEDPA!
Might this foreshadow majority in Alabama redistricting?
Hope springs eternal that eventually this remnant of barbarism will disappear from our legal proceedings.
Why do we have death sentences anyway? Individuals spend 20, 30,40 years in prison and then they decide to execute them. A death sentence should be done expeditiously in my opinion
One non-hypocritical “pro-life” stance does not a balanced juror make.