• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.

Is it negotiation when the other party actually wants to shoot the hostage?

He really is that stupid.

Conservatism: there are some people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

That’s my take and I am available for criticism at this time.

It’s easy to sit in safety and prescribe what other people should be doing.

My years-long effort to drive family and friends away has really paid off this year.

The poor and middle-class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the wealthy pay politicians.

Come on, man.

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

Consistently wrong since 2002

This really is a full service blog.

A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires

This fight is for everything.

rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius

Not all heroes wear capes.

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

Just because you believe it, that doesn’t make it true.

Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Scalito? Or Souterlito?

Scalito? Or Souterlito?

by John Cole|  February 2, 20068:56 am| 28 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

This was unexpected:

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court’s conservatives in a death penalty case on his first day on the court.

Handling his first case, Alito sided with five other justices Wednesday evening in refusing to allow Missouri to execute inmate Michael Taylor.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas supported lifting the an execution stay issued by an appeals court, but Alito sided with the majority in turning down Missouri’s last-minute request to allow a midnight execution.

Earlier in the day, Alito was sworn in for a second time in a White House ceremony, where he was lauded by President Bush as a man of “steady demeanor, careful judgment and complete integrity.”

He was also was given his assignment for handling emergency appeals: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. As a result, Missouri filed with Alito its request for the high court to void a stay and allow Taylor’s execution.

This will certainly be a surprise to those who thought he would be legalizing rape on his first day.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Who Is That Strange Voice You Hear?
Next Post: Headline of the Day »

Reader Interactions

28Comments

  1. 1.

    Sam Hutcheson

    February 2, 2006 at 9:07 am

    He wasn’t nominated for his death penalty decisions. He was nominated for his aversion to curtailing executive power.

  2. 2.

    Par R

    February 2, 2006 at 9:18 am

    Kerry and Kennedy were right….he shouldn’t be on the Court. Impeach him, now!

  3. 3.

    Kav

    February 2, 2006 at 9:29 am

    John, John, John, >sighThis will certainly be a surprise to those who thought he would be legalizing rape on his first day.

    How many time do you have to be told to read the bullet points carefully? The legalization of rape is down for day six, not day one. Come on, get on message!

  4. 4.

    Cyrus

    February 2, 2006 at 10:01 am

    Well, I don’t think one decision that limits government power (in this specific case; as I understood it, this would have little or no precedent-setting effect) invalidates everything he had done before, especially when his really offensive rulings had nothing to do with the death penalty… but if “Souterlito” does turn out to be accurate, it would be one of those time I’d be glad to be proved wrong.

  5. 5.

    Lines

    February 2, 2006 at 10:10 am

    Linking to Jeff’s horrible attempt at comedy as if it were fact? Jesus John, give it a fucking break.

  6. 6.

    Jim

    February 2, 2006 at 10:10 am

    It is a surprise, unlike Roberts’ first decision. I think Alito was stung by the public expectation that he would be another Bush robot, so he voted with the clear majority to establish his independence. I hope I’m wrong. Anyone care to wager that Alito will not vote with the Right Wing Three in over 75% of the cases?

  7. 7.

    Peter ve

    February 2, 2006 at 10:31 am

    Impeach Earl Warren!

  8. 8.

    DJAnyReason

    February 2, 2006 at 10:50 am

    The difference between Alito and Souter is the length of the paper trail. If Alito starts voting against executive power and in favor of privacy rights I would be absolutely shocked out of my gourd. One vote does not a justice make, obviously.

  9. 9.

    srv

    February 2, 2006 at 11:09 am

    More likely, he didn’t want his first act to be frying somebody. This makes him seem more reasonable. I’m sure it won’t last.

  10. 10.

    Steve

    February 2, 2006 at 11:23 am

    I know some of these comments are tongue in cheek, but I wonder how many people really think every decision that gets made is some kind of crass political calculation, as if Alito were Hillary Clinton trying to tack to the center. It’s a completely unaccountable lifetime appointment, folks. He’s not going to make a life-or-death decision about someone’s execution just to show the world he’s an independent thinker.

    To the extent this decision was anything other than just his straightforward call on the legal issues, the most likely explanation is that he just got sworn in and wanted more time for himself and his clerks to review the issues. It’s a stay order with no written opinions. You really can’t read anything into it at all.

  11. 11.

    John Cole

    February 2, 2006 at 11:52 am

    I know some of these comments are tongue in cheek, but I wonder how many people really think every decision that gets made is some kind of crass political calculation, as if Alito were Hillary Clinton trying to tack to the center. It’s a completely unaccountable lifetime appointment, folks. He’s not going to make a life-or-death decision about someone’s execution just to show the world he’s an independent thinker.

    Thank you for writing this, because you saved me the effort.

    Some of you folks truly surprise me- I understand you may not like Alito’s politics. I don’t like some of his politics, either. But how low of an opinion of someone as a person must you have to state that the only reason he ruled one way in a life or death instance was to provide himself with an aura of reasonableness. Sheesh, people.

  12. 12.

    Jorge

    February 2, 2006 at 12:43 pm

    It is his first day, he just pressed the wrong lever is all. :)

  13. 13.

    fwiffo

    February 2, 2006 at 12:57 pm

    So, why has there been zero discussion on the merits of this particular case? Are opinions from the justices available, or will there not be opinions for this kind of ruling? (as they basically voted to allow the lower court’s ruling to stand and not get involved.)

    What grounds did Missouri have for asking the stay be overturned, and what is the counterargument?

    It seems weird that this decision has been talked about so much but there has been so little on the whys and wherefores. If we want to get an understanding of the new Justice’s judicial philosophy and reasoning process, it seems like that would be the part that’s important, much more so than which side he fell on on any particular case, as there are both liberal and conservative reasons for being for or against the death penalty, or a particular death penalty case.

  14. 14.

    The Other Steve

    February 2, 2006 at 1:20 pm

    Why is it unexpected?

    A well known side-effect of the Pro-Life anti-abortion movement is… opposition to the death penalty.

    If he’s being logically consistent, this makes sense. It’s only when your using abortion as a wedge issue, rather than a sincere commitment, that you can be strongly against abortion and strongly for the death penalty.

  15. 15.

    Al Maviva

    February 2, 2006 at 1:33 pm

    I don’t know that being anti abortion and pro death penalty are completely illogical. If one starts from the premise that all life is to be respected, and no life should be wrongly taken, then the question becomes one of appropriate punishment for the wrongful taking of life. It seems to me that if you were weighing wrongs on a scale, the more grievous the taking of life, the greater the punishment should be; and a lenient punishment for the wrongful taking of life could be thought to improperly devalue the life taken.

    It wouldn’t follow necessarily that the death penalty is always and everywhere the right thing to do, just that in a retributionist penal system, it might at times be the right thing to do; and in some cases anything less might be a horrible sellout on the first principle that all life is valuable. For example, anything less than the death penalty for the architects of the holocaust or Stalin’s gulags, is a grotesque devaluing of the lives of the millions of people killed in those two mechanisms of mass murder.

  16. 16.

    Kimmitt

    February 2, 2006 at 1:43 pm

    For some reason Judge Alito’s apparently cavalier attitude toward restraining state authority does seem to get tempered by death penalty cases.

    Anyways, I don’t know anything about the merits of the case. I do know that Alito’s pretty seriously into the letter of process, even if the results of the process are perverse.

  17. 17.

    ppGaz

    February 2, 2006 at 3:15 pm

    The track record on trying to predict the judicial posture of SCOTUS justices hasn’t been all that good.

    What made people think that it would suddenly get good in the case of Roberts or Alito? I think it will be quite a while before we know what their effect on the court turns out to be.

    This story today is the equivalent of trying to predict the next couple months’ weather based on whether a groundhog sees its shadow.

    All due respect and apologies to Punxatawney Phil.

  18. 18.

    Brandon

    February 2, 2006 at 3:24 pm

    A well known side-effect of the Pro-Life anti-abortion movement is… opposition to the death penalty.

    If he’s being logically consistent, this makes sense.

    In other words,

    The life of an unborn child = a convicted murdered.

    I think I get it now.

  19. 19.

    Brandon

    February 2, 2006 at 3:31 pm

    That should read:

    life of an unborn child = the life of a convicted murderer.

    Preview’s my friend.

  20. 20.

    demimondian

    February 2, 2006 at 3:35 pm

    Are opinions from the justices available, or will there not be opinions for this kind of ruling?

    No. This is a purely procedural decision, with no precedental value. More than that, since the court had just blocked a different execution on the basis of a virtually identical argument a few days ago, it’s hard to see how anyone with an interest in due process could have voted any other way.

  21. 21.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 2, 2006 at 5:24 pm

    I don’t know that being anti abortion and pro death penalty are completely illogical.

    You’re right. It isn’t.

    What it is, is hypocritical.

  22. 22.

    Brandon

    February 2, 2006 at 6:07 pm

    I guess on the flip side, everyone who favors the abortion of children as a means of birth control should also be in favor of the death penalty, right?

  23. 23.

    Kimmitt

    February 2, 2006 at 6:15 pm

    it’s hard to see how anyone with an interest in due process could have voted any other way.

    Hence Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia’s decision. Man, we’ve got a bunch of pieces of work in charge of things up there.

  24. 24.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 2, 2006 at 6:18 pm

    Well if they honestly think it should be used at birth control then yea. But I don’t really know of any of those people. It’s usually a silly meme spouted by the same people who talk about “abortion on demand”.

    Now you can be pro-choice and anti-DP. I am. There are several reasons as to why it is not hypocritical, the first being that it’s the mother’s body, the mother’s baby, and noone of my business. Second would be the scientific fact that fetus is not sentient until at least 22 weeks, thus the fetus is dependant on the mother and not an individual of itself yet. Then again, if you’re strongly religious you probably don’t like sciencitfic facts, so you would disregard this argument.

    The same goes for volutary euthanasia. You can’t even make the argument that you must be anti-euthanasia if you’re anti-DP. I let people make their own decisions about their own bodies. It’s that simple.

  25. 25.

    Steve

    February 2, 2006 at 6:31 pm

    More than that, since the court had just blocked a different execution on the basis of a virtually identical argument a few days ago, it’s hard to see how anyone with an interest in due process could have voted any other way.

    Assuming the conservative wing objected to blocking the other execution as well, then I don’t see anything wrong with them voting the same way when this case comes up. I actually had a debate with someone on this issue a little while back, but in my book the concept of precedent doesn’t work like that.

    An analogy would be the fact that some of the liberal justices dissent from every death penalty order, over and over again, on the basis that they think the death penalty is unconstitutional. If what you say is correct, they’d have to stop making that argument after the first time they lost.

  26. 26.

    demimondian

    February 2, 2006 at 10:32 pm

    Assuming the conservative wing objected to blocking the other execution as well, then I don’t see anything wrong with them voting the same way when this case comes up.

    I would buy that argument, although it troubles me. I think one can make an equally strong argument that the justices should have all voted for a stay, unless there was something qualitatively different about this case from the other. I’d argue that based on the case that there’s a peculiar intensity to equal protection issues during last minute appeals.

    Of course, since there aren’t any opinions here, they might have felt that there was something different about this one than about the other.

  27. 27.

    The Other Steve

    February 3, 2006 at 1:33 am

    The life of an unborn child = a convicted murdered.

    I see you have no intention of taking my point seriously.

    And you wonder why we make fun of you moonbats?

  28. 28.

    Brandon

    February 3, 2006 at 3:10 pm

    I see you have no intention of taking my point seriously.

    With such a ridiculous comparison, why should I?

    And you wonder why we make fun of you moonbats?

    Rightwing extremists (which I’m not) are called Wingnuts.

    Leftwing extremists are called Moonbats.

    Get it right.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Recent Comments

  • Baud on Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread: Good for the Mouse! (Mar 22, 2023 @ 3:19pm)
  • JPL on Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread: Good for the Mouse! (Mar 22, 2023 @ 3:19pm)
  • Manyakitty on Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread: Good for the Mouse! (Mar 22, 2023 @ 3:18pm)
  • Central Planning on Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread: Good for the Mouse! (Mar 22, 2023 @ 3:18pm)
  • JCJ on Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread: Good for the Mouse! (Mar 22, 2023 @ 3:17pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!