By Wayne Dupree | December 7, 2019
On Friday, The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling blocking the Trump administration from resuming federal executions.
Four convicted murderers were on track to meet their maker next week, but the justices’ decision claim executions by lethal injection violate federal law. However, in a surprise, three Justices, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch wrote how they expected the Trump administration to prevail in court.
“The Court has expressed the hope that the Court of Appeals will proceed with ‘appropriate dispatch,’ and I see no reason why the Court of Appeals should not be able to decide this case, one way or the other, within the next 60 days,” Alito said.
Why would the Supreme Court say, “We expect Trump will prevail,” but then put a hold on it and send it back to the appellate court? That makes no sense.
Why should the resources of society be used to support someone who has no worth to society, provides no value to society, and must be kept locked in a concrete cage for the rest of its life? It’s a waste of resources and serves no purpose, other than to make bleeding heart liberals feel superior. The resources for that person could be better used to support a person or family that is struggling or has lost their home, but not their job, or is homeless and trying to figure out a way to get back on their feet.
The justices upheld a lower court ruling imposed last month after inmates claimed executions by lethal injection would violate federal law.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., had imposed a temporary injunction on executions, saying they would conflict with federal law. That ruling was upheld Monday by a three-judge federal appeals court.
Attorney General William Barr announced in July that the federal government would resume executions after a 16-year break, using a single drug — pentobarbital — to put inmates to death. A legal battle has drawn out over that time over the drugs used for lethal injections.
Federal executions were all but halted after the government found it difficult to obtain the three-drug cocktail needed for such injections.
Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said the legal battle would continue.
“While we are disappointed with the ruling, we will argue the case on its merits in the D.C. Circuit and, if necessary, the Supreme Court,” she said in a statement. [Fox News]
Join Stacy's fight!
Get the latest news from conservative mom, wife, U.S. Air Force veteran and Emmy nominated TV personality Stacy Washington.
The appeal process takes entirely too much time and essentially negates the impact of the death penalty sentence being given. If it’s never going to be carried out, then what’s the use of handing that sentence down?
Recommended: Anti-Trump CNN Drops to Three-Year Low in Ratings
The appeals process was meant to root out and protect innocent, wrongly accused people by review of evidence and procedures. It wasn’t meant to be a marathon, decades-long process, or a way for rightly convicted people to extend their lives. Once proven beyond doubt and reviewed, executions should follow in short order.
The cruelest and unusual thing about the execution process is that it is stacked in favor of the criminals. Prolonging the process over the years is added punishment for the convicted, their victims, and their families. Time to eliminate appeals, pardons, and commutations perform executions immediately after conviction. Preferably within 24 hours.
Given the cost of warehousing prisoners, particularly repeat offenders, it might even make sense to extend the death penalty to other offenses.
This piece originally appeared in WayneDupree.com and is used by permission.
Read more at WayneDupree.com:
Report: Nadler’s Star Impeachment Witness Prof. Noah Feldman Busted Lying During Sworn Testimony
Report: Juan Williams Shreds Nadler’s Impeachment Hearing ‘We Don’t Have Any Fact-Based Witnesses or Evidence…’
[VIDEO] Impeachment Hearings So Bad Even Chris Wallace is Turning on Them ‘Not a Search for Justice or Wisdom’
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Stacy Washington.