If one translates (Google Translate) this press release, "As a majority that exceeds eight votes has been reached, the Court's reasons are binding on each and every judge in Mexico; both federal and local." I believe from Gay USA that various other hot button issues were split, so a ruling was not so universal. There are ten judges, so I guess there can only be one dissent.
[Meanwhile, here, there will be some protests for abortion rights and other things. Here is a good article on what to and not to look for at protests.]
SCOTUS Orals: Moving to our own Supreme Court, the first three months/sessions of oral argument will be in person, but without non-press (full time credentials) public access. They will continue live audio. No more phone stuff / one at time stuff (one assumes).
This pleases a lot of legal types. I'm less concerned about a slight delay. If the audio was allowed in the afternoon (when the transcript drops), I would be okay. But, it helps. I would rather have video, since the public (and even some press) won't be able to access the oral arguments of the 2/3 legitimate Court. The building is closed to the public for the time being.
Death Penalty: John H. Ramirez accepted his fate -- execution -- but wanted a spiritual advisor to lay his hands on him and pray as Ramirez died. Texas only would allow the advisor to be in the death chamber, something that has been a matter of dispute in various shadow docket cases in the last couple years. It might have been useful to take a case for argument to clarify something that repeatedly split them and other judges.
I don't know if he somehow challenged his execution in the past. It would seem so, since the summary has him being sentenced almost fifteen years ago. He murdered someone in gruesome fashion (over twenty stabbings), fled to Mexico, and eventually was caught. A one-off murder like that does not to me seem like a "worse of the worst" scenario. He is only 37. If you accepted your fate here, one might think those who are sentenced to a term of years might be suffering more. Subjective thing.
As to his claim, moving past any procedural issues that I have little reason to opine on, the lesser request of prayer probably is the strongest. As a matter of discretion, probably would let the spiritual advisor lay his hands on the guy. But, as a matter of mandatory requirements, somewhat hard to argue that the state has no interest in avoiding someone not a state official to touch the guy as he dies. Always a chance of some problem there.
Mind you, I thought Hobby Lobby supplying their employees birth control coverage could be required too. To be fair there, prisons generally get to have stronger rules, even with a federal law in place specifically to protect state prisoners. Again, maybe if the Supreme Court had a full argument on this question -- which came up to them at least three times -- there would be a bit more clarity on the rules in this context.
Meanwhile, an article about various things people on death row can ask for when they are about to die.
Supreme Court says ... at around 10 P.M. D.C. local time, an order dropped that GRANTED CERT, which is a tad surprising though given the multiple cases cited above and concern for religious liberty (Alito granted the overall claim of having a spiritual advisor was a credible one) -- not totally ad hoc -- only so much.
[This article discusses three shadow docket cases; another later was sent back to determine if there was a good reason to deny the request.]
A special proviso was added to schedule it so it would be heard in October or November. No dissent noted. Anyway, good move.
Orders: There will be an Order List this Friday.
ETA: The orders were bland, but we had more late Friday stuff, if only an extended list of questions to address in the death penalty case. Why it dropped late is unclear, but maybe they just are used to late Friday drops.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!