Attack on the independent judiciary

[cannon_fodder]

Also Guido,

All the legislature has to do to avoid any of the power of the Court is to pass constitutional legislation.  Start by learning the single subject rule.  POOF - problem solved.  The idiots refuse to play by the rules set forth in the Constitution.

Yet they all pretend to swear an oath to uphold it?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Fallen is right to step in and declare a stay.  Had she done so earlier this would have been averted.  But I agree that there must be a stay or it would be an illegal execution (though I have a tendency to agree with Conan here, there is a well established right to die a "clean death" lest it be cruel and unusua. Along with that comes the right to challenge your method of execution.).

If there was concern about a "clean death", then a bullet to the head is a very reasonable way to do it - no cruelty at all.  Instant cessation of all brain function and life with no drawn out thoughts or consciousness.  Literally milliseconds...don't have to wait 10, 20 or 30 seconds for the drug to cause sleep, then death some minutes later.  Given the fact that occasionally anesthesia leaves people "awake" but unable to respond, how do we know the killing drugs don't leave the person alert to what is happening?

Or hang 'em with extra weight strapped to the body, so it is guaranteed to remove the head from the body....  but then the head does have the ability to respond for some period of time.

[Conan71]

If there was concern about a "clean death", then a bullet to the head is a very reasonable way to do it - no cruelty at all.  Instant cessation of all brain function and life with no drawn out thoughts or consciousness.  Literally milliseconds...don't have to wait 10, 20 or 30 seconds for the drug to cause sleep, then death some minutes later.  Given the fact that occasionally anesthesia leaves people "awake" but unable to respond, how do we know the killing drugs don't leave the person alert to what is happening?

Or hang 'em with extra weight strapped to the body, so it is guaranteed to remove the head from the body....  but then the head does have the ability to respond for some period of time.

I've always noticed a distinct burning sensation when I've been put under for surgery, but I doubt I've remained conscious longer than 10 seconds after that hit.

[Townsend]

I've always noticed a distinct burning sensation

Penicillin?

[Conan71]

Penicillin?

It happens when one runs out of Jimmy hats while on shore leave.

[guido911]

Guido?

You apperently have strong feelings, but are refusing to discuss.  You need to say WHY.

I think it is apperent that even the OK Supreme Court knows they are over stepping.  BUT, there was a weird jurisdictional loop where two citizens would be executed on unconstitutional terms and could not get redress.  Was the proper course of action to execute them and then determine if the execution was illegal?  It all depends on the appeal of the secrecy law... which won't be done soon.

A stay was the only solution.   The Supreme Court did not overturn the Crim Ap court (blatantly unconstitutional), rather it ruled on a matter that it may not have jurisdiction to rule on (shaky constitutional ground).  For it to be an actual power grab, you would have to argue that this sets some precedent that the Supreme Court wields power over the Crim Ap, IMHO - this is a unique situation that led to an impossible outcome.  I do not think a challenges of a civil law will often lead to the stay of an execution.

Fallen is right to step in and declare a stay.  Had she done so earlier this would have been averted.  But I agree that there must be a stay or it would be an illegal execution (though I have a tendency to agree with Conan here, there is a well established right to die a "clean death" lest it be cruel and unusua. Along with that comes the right to challenge your method of execution.).

The only alternative for the Supreme Court would be to allow a knowingly illegal execution pending an appeal of a civil law.  Weird situation.  Solution:  allow sealed review of the execution drugs.

I do not have "strong feelings" about this CCA intrusion by the Supreme Court. I'll leave it at I am concerned about the naked power grab/over reach by the Supremes in this capital punishment issue. What I will note is that the entire premise of this thread is that the Supreme Court "got it right" with their log rolling or single subject rulings. If they got it wrong, then it is they--not the legislature--that is intruding on another's power (just like they did with the stay). Right? I simply am not convinced the Court was 100% correct. You are.

[guido911]

Here's a solution.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/some-oklahoma-supreme-court-justices-could-face-impeachment/article_8d55fb98-cb23-11e3-9250-001a4bcf6878.html

[guido911]

The Supremes back off.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/oklahoma-supreme-court-dissolves-execution-stay/article_342a02f6-cb48-11e3-a1ea-001a4bcf6878.html

[cynical]

The way i read the opinions is that the Supreme Court made a mistake, but it was not a power grab. It was in treating a declaratory judgment action brought because all other avenues had been taken and completed as a civil declaratory judgment action rather than as a collateral attack on the judgment and sentence in the criminal case. They apparently recognized that the stay request was essentially criminal in nature and tried twice to punt that issue over to the Court of Criminal Appeals. The CCA refused to rule either time on the merits of the stay. The first time, the CCA correctly ruled it lacked subject matter jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action. That might have given the Supreme Court a clue about the true nature of the case before it, but they continued to treat it as some sort of hybrid civil case with a criminal case aspect that could be taken apart and dealt with piecemeal.

Meanwhile, the declaratory judgment action, stripped of the stay issue, was remanded to the trial court which ruled that the statute was unconstitutional because it deprived the petitioners of their right to access the courts. After the trial court ruled, that part of the case was sent back to the Supreme Court, which a second time sent the request for a stay pending appeal of the trial court's ruling to the CCA, this time with a formal determination by the Supreme Court pursuant to Art. 7  Sec. 4 of the Oklahoma Constitution that the CCA had jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the stay request. Lost in all of the argument is the fact that the constitutional provision cited was designed to head off these kinds of jurisdictional ping pong matches by giving the Supreme Court the final say on which court has jurisdiction. Even when the SC had ruled that the CCA had jurisdiction, the CCA refused to rule on the merits. The Supreme Court had an issue before it that it did not want to decide, but which the court that had jurisdiction was refusing to decide. The SC relied on a common-law "rule of necessity" and granted the stay.

The issue could have and should have been headed off in one of two ways. If the CCA had accepted jurisdiction over the stay request and ruled either way on the merits, the "constitutional crisis" could have been avoided. If on the other hand the Supreme Court had treated the declaratory judgment action as an impermissible collateral attack on the sentence, the "constitutional crisis" could have been avoided. Instead, the Supreme Court has now ruled that the statute was constitutional and has dissolved the stay. The political environment surrounding tonight's ruling, with the Governor's bellicose posturing and the threatened impeachment of the majority justices is troubling and was unnecessary, but that's Oklahoma politics. A lynch mob doesn't mix well with due process.

I do not have "strong feelings" about this CCA intrusion by the Supreme Court. I'll leave it at I am concerned about the naked power grab/over reach by the Supremes in this capital punishment issue. What I will note is that the entire premise of this thread is that the Supreme Court "got it right" with their log rolling or single subject rulings. If they got it wrong, then it is they--not the legislature--that is intruding on another's power (just like they did with the stay). Right? I simply am not convinced the Court was 100% correct. You are.

[guido911]

^^^^Good take.

[cannon_fodder]

100% agree.

[Townsend]

[Red Arrow]

Wow! Jumping pigs.

[guido911]

National blogs picking up on the possible impeachment story...

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/26/oklahoma-house-seeks-to-impeach-half-of-the-state-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comments

[Townsend]

National blogs picking up on the possible impeachment story...

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/26/oklahoma-house-seeks-to-impeach-half-of-the-state-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comments

I'll refrain from making fun of the site...but there are things of which to be made fun.