- Posted by Christopher Estep on January 7, 2008
Oral arguments were heard this morning and the usual suspects said the usual things.
Justice Stevens, the old feeb, showed his senility with the following:
"I'm terribly troubled by the fact that the second drug seems to cause all risk of excruciating pain," Justice John Paul Stevens said.
And I'm terribly troubled that the Senate let this waste of oxygen on the bench! All I can think of is Admiral Stockdale in 1992 insanely shouting "Gridlock!" in the 1992 Veep debates.
Someone needs to tell Grandpa Simpson Stevens that the second drug just paralyzes them. It doesn't cause any pain and it doesn't cause "all risk of excruciating pain" whatever the heck that is supposed to mean. The second drug is at issue is because IF they are in pain, they can't cry out. Where's Jack Kevorkian when you need him? Sheesh!
Justice Scalia injected some wisdom that is a "well, duh!" to anyone who can read (except liberals):
"There is no painless requirement [in the Constitution]"
And of course, the failure of Bush 41's presidency, Justice Souter, gave his Rodney King "can't we all get along" statement:
Justice David Souter urged his colleagues to take the time necessary to issue a definitive decision about the three-drug method in this case, even if it means sending the case back to Kentucky for more study by courts there.
Scalia, however, said such a move would mean "a national cessation of executions. We're looking at years. We wouldn't want that to happen."
No, WE wouldn't, Justice Scalia. But your liberal courtmates and commucrats throughout the country want precisely that to happen. And that's why you're even looking at this issue instead of laughing it off like you should.