Summary
Should interpreting the Constitution smack more of knight errantry than a genuine search for the intent of its makers?
That question was center stage as Justice John Paul Stevens dueled with Justice Antonin Scalia in Baze v. Rees (April 16, 2008) over the death penalty in a detour from upholding the constitutionality of lethal injections. Justice Stevens consulted his evolving moral compass (he had previously endorsed the death penalty 32 years earlier in Gregg v. Georgia); and, his own experience, i.e., 33 years sitting on the United States Supreme Court in sublime tranquility where a falling pin can be heard. He concluded in the manner of a papal encyclical that, "[T]he imposition of the death penalty represents 'the pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernable social or public purposes. A penalty with such negligible returns to the state [is] patently excessive and cruel and unusual punishment violative of the Eighth Amendment.' "See the full content of this document
Extract
Dueling Justices On Death Penalty
Justice Scalia assailed Justice Stevens' opinion with the ferocity of a gladiator. He roared at Justice Stevens' for marginalizing or subordinating all experience with the death penalty but his own, which epitomizes a jurisprudenc...
See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
