[ad_1]
Despite the often-stated goal of Chief Justice John Roberts to keep the Supreme Court above the conflicts that paralyzed the political branches of government, it sometimes happens that internal debates take place between judges – and even some snipers.
In addition to a third case of death penalty involving the request of a Buddhist spiritual adviser last week, the judges have obviously upset the issue. This will probably only intensify now that the addition of Judge Brett Kavanaugh has reinforced the conservative trend of the court.
"The stakes are not greater than in death penalty cases, and disputes between judges and court divisions are likely to escalate," said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School.
She said the court was likely to move right in the coming years and that "these three death penalty cases could demonstrate the growing pains of the court as it moves away from the ideological center" .
Death penalty experts say that court frictions often arise in cases involving deadly injection protocols and last-minute suspension requests. "As such, we are starting to see these conflicts between judges unfold in unusual places and in unusual ways," said Deborah Denno, a law professor at Fordham.
In early February, the conservative majority of the court, composed of 5 out of 4 people, hardly motivated its decision to allow Ray's execution. The Alabama prison allows a Christian chaplain to visit the room, but officials have blocked the imam saying that only prison staff could be present in the room for security reasons .
The US Court of Appeals of the 11th Circuit granted a stay of execution, but the High Court lifted the stay and opened the way for execution, claiming that Ray had waited too long – he had formulated the request less than two weeks before its execution.
This order aroused strong opposition from the liberal judges, presided over by Judge Elena Kagan, who claimed that Ray had made "a powerful assertion that her religious rights would be violated by the time the state turned her on. death. "
She accused the conservative majority of bypassing the "ordinary" process that should have taken place in the lower courts "just so that the state could respect the preferred execution date".
Neal Katyal, former acting Solicitor General of the Obama administration, said that the order would be recalled in the same category as some of the most infamous Supreme Court opinion. "In 100 years, law students will be informed of this decision and it could be read alongside Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu and the Chinese Exclusion Act," he tweeted.
The case also shocked religious conservatives, surprised that the conservative majority did not respond to the detainee's request.
Last week, controversy resumed, when judges were faced with a similar petition emanating from a Texas detainee, Patrick Henry Murphy, who claimed that the state was violating his religious freedom because he was being held in prison. He refused to let his Buddhist spiritual advisor enter the chamber because the state only allowed Christian chaplains and Muslim prison laborers.
Judges Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas took note of their dissensions, but it was unclear how Roberts or Judge Samuel Alito voted.
Again, the court divided 5-4 in the case, Gorsuch drafting the opinion of the majority and ruling against Bucklew.
In doing so, Gorusch returned to Ray's performance to make it clear that "last minute stays should be an extreme exception".
He accused the dissidents of attempting to "revive Ray's case" by claiming that Ray's appeal had been made on time.
In a footnote, Gorsuch indicated that Ray "had been advised for a long time that there was a question about whether his adviser would be allowed to sit in the room", but he waited "just 15 days before the execution "to seek clarification.
It appeared that Gorsuch was doing everything possible to better explain the reasoning behind Ray's order. Judge Sonia Sotomayor was particularly disturbed by the fact that the prison "refused to give Ray" a copy of his own practices.
"Even the late explanation of the majority today relies on the mistaken premise that Domineque Ray could have understood earlier that Alabama had planned to deny his imam access to the hall. of execution, "wrote Sotomayor.
In writing separately, Judge Stephen Breyer also cited Ray's case and suggested that the majority had acted with unnecessary haste.
There may be "no way to execute a prisoner quickly while offering him the protections guaranteed by our Constitution," wrote Breyer.
Public clashes over a decision in a previous case, especially one from just two months ago, are rare, said Denno.
"It was strange to see the judges discussing the merits of a totally different case that had nothing to do with the ongoing case," she said.
[ad_2]
Source link