More Executions

Stacy Humphreys 

Georgia planned to execute Stacey Humphreys for a double robbery/homicide last December. 

The press (as discussed here) tried to obtain more information about the execution. Open access is important for due process and public education.  

A state court blocked the execution. He might be eligible pursuant to a state law protecting victims of abuse. Net result: the execution warrant ran out.

Jeffery Lee

Alabama planned to execute Jeffery Lee using nitrogen gas. A lower court, not blocked by the Supreme Court this time, held it was unconstitutionally risky. They used lethal injection.

The final appeal challenged Alabama's ability to switch methods. Lee's lawyers argue the state said "nitrogen gas," and they don't have the right to switch now. Lee offered the firing squad as a backup option (one is required) when challenging the nitrogen gas. 

Denied without comment. The liberals pick their spots. The back-and-forth nature of this execution provides some grounds to drop a statement or dissenting opinion. A statement would flag concerns, but not enough to warrant granting a stay of execution and/or a cert. grant. 

Lee was convicted of a double homicide. The jury (7-5) voted to apply a life sentence without parole. The judge overruled it and applied the death penalty.

If we set twenty years as "too long," the murders took place in 2003. OTOH, the Supreme Court has never accepted the "taking too long" approach.  

Here's a good summary. 

LeJames Norman

Norman and a second person (who is scheduled to die later this month) murdered three people in an attempted robbery twenty years ago. 

They were 19 and 20. The constitutional line has been set at 18. Age is still a mitigating factor. 

There is also a citation of "chaotic, impoverished, and violent childhoods." Norman also showed remorse and testified against his co-defendant.* 

The final appeal argued that the prosecutor corruptly baited and switched. They used Norman to convict his co-defendant and then badmouthed him, sometimes with lies, during his own trial.

SCOTUS denied it without comment, which is normal enough, though it did take until late afternoon on the day of the execution. He was then executed. 

I'm sure the lawyers raised various other claims over the years. Overall, the best reason not to execute is that there are enough mitigating factors.

Two people under 21 committed a horrible crime and have been in prison longer than they were alive. Execution does not improve the public welfare.

==

* I will update this entry regarding that execution.

Mail-In Ballots

Not very verbose, but the Supreme Court (with feeling) held up Trump's attempt to screw over mail-in voting. Kavanaugh concurred while noting the rule change might be okay long-term. Alito (with Thomas) dissented. Vladeck with more. 

The Administration can still cause problems, including pressuring state officials by threatening them with prosecution. 

Schitt's Creek

 

This is/was a beloved show by many different types of people. I didn't really like the first season when I saw it some time back. I watched some mid-series episodes last weekend. 

Enjoyed it more. I think the show might have the most charm when the characters settle in and become more part of the town. Maybe a re-watch would improve things. 

OTOH, multiple shows kick in later in the series. Newhart, for instance, was not that good until the third season. Night Court too. 

25 Years?

I watched the film Executive Decision in the 1990s.

The film, with a small part for the then Mrs. Trump (Marla Maples), concerned terrorists taking control of an airplane.

The terrorist leader plans to detonate a bomb loaded with the DZ-5 in U.S. airspace. A special ops team, including a civilian terrorist consultant played by Kurt Russell, manages to secretly board the plane. It's an entertaining film, though I don't think it quite sticks the landing in the last reel.

Five years later, I listened to the radio as an on-the-scene reporter tearfully reported that one of the twin towers collapsed. I could see the smoke from midtown Manhattan. A few days later, I passed the church where they were having funerals.

I think one good memorial is the names placed on tiles on the wall in a passageway of the Union Square train station of those who died. Has it been 25 years? 

Oh well.

Florida Executes Daniel Owen Conahan

Daniel Owen Conahan kidnapped, raped, and murdered someone thirty years ago. He might have murdered someone else. I understand sentencing him to death. 

Justice Breyer explained why it is wrong to execute him now. It was a dissenting opinion, though I wish someone on the current Court took up the cause. Conahan's final appeal argued that he deserves additional DNA testing. It was probably correctly denied. 

It might be good policy to supply the testing. What is the harm? Ultimately, the death penalty is wrong, especially if it is held in abeyance for three decades. More executions to come.

SCOTUS Watch: Post Holiday Edition

James Wilson is an interesting guy. I liked the author's book on abolishing the Electoral College. I did not like this one. Charles Pinckney is also interesting. An older book on that guy is almost a monograph or something (it's small). Decent account. 

The Supreme Court didn't block a New York law denying religious exemptions to child vaccine requirements. Alito and Gorsuch, without comment, dissented. Good.

Kavanaugh, by himself, rejected a Republican redistricting lawsuit request. [The Court later also did so.] Limited bit of sanity.

SCOTUS Watch

Trump Ballroom 

I wrote about Monday's order allowing Trump to continue to break the law. I apologize; that is much too vague. It is about the ballroom. 

Roberts and the liberals dissented. Yes. He has done a lot wrong. A few moments don't take him off the hook. But credit where credit is due, and all that.

Court Expansion

House Republicans, who plan to mostly hide out until November, had a message vote against court expansion. More specifically, on an amendment setting the number of justices at nine. 

Two people voted differently than their party, and one is an asterisk. The Republican recently labeled himself an "independent" while still voting with Republicans. 

This sounds like another token way to pretend he is not a Trump bootlicker or something. I don't know why the Democrat voted that way. I won't check. I assume he represents a reddish district. 

It's stupid either way. If you don't like court expansion, which is far from being a thing (one key Democrat said in an interview he is now open to it; okay), don't vote for it. 

The number of justices has changed over time, between 5 and 10 justices. Federalists added a court of appeals, which would have ended circuit riding. The next vacancy would not be filled, resulting in five justices. The law was changed before that happened. 

It is a bad idea to set minutiae in stone in the Constitution. We should allow flexibility. 

I am wary of the 25th Amendment. The concern there is that it was so sensitive; the process for removing a president should be clearly in place. Again, I question if even that was a good idea. It is just too specific. 

Court expansion talk is itself partially a message. If court expansion is even open to the realm of possibility, a lot of other things should be possible. 

The link flags that a key Democrat has now made supportive noises. That's notable. But this seems more a reaction to DSA support of the idea. 

Republicans want to tar Democrats as akin to the most doctrinaire DSA type while the House Speaker pretends not to know most of what Trump is doing. 

Order List

The last scheduled summer order list had the usual housekeeping measures, involving pending cases, rehearings denied, and attorney discipline. Barrett didn't take part (without saying why) in one case. 

The most notable thing, apparently, is what they did not decide. There is a pending case involving New York health workers who were not satisfied with the vaccine exemption process. 

Justices Gorsuch (who wrote one or more opinions on it), Alito, and Thomas have been concerned about this issue. The other conservatives avoided it. 

Election Case

The Supreme Court, with only Jackson briefly dissenting (with no heat), granted a stay in an election case. Rick Hasen briefly summarizes. 

Steve Vladeck on Bluesky notes Jackson has the better argument, but that the case isn't too important. That would help explain why Sotomayor and Kagan didn't join. Since Republicans are involved, some knee-jerk replies figured the fix was in.

It is good that the justices deigned to explain themselves. They are doing that more lately.

ETA: Steve Vladeck's Monday Substack informs me that the Supreme Court also released the schedule for December oral arguments. Two cases: assault weapons and another trans case.