Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Tuesday suggested that the Supreme Court may strike down the death penalty.
During a speech at Rhodes College in Tennessee, he said he “wouldn’t be surprised” if the court rules that it is unconstitutional, according to The Commercial Appeal. Scalia added that he believes that the Constitution allows for the death penalty as long as there is a fair trial.
He said that four of his colleagues on the Supreme Court believe the death penalty is unconstitutional, according to The Commercial Appeal’s Jennifer Pignolet.
Taking now about the death penalty. Says he now has 4 colleagues who believe it’s unconstitutional. He disagrees. Takes a shot a Yale, too.
— Jennifer Pignolet (@JenPignolet) September 22, 2015
During his speech, Scalia also criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, called the decision “extreme.”
So says the SC’s most reverent Catholic. He has a chance this weekend to ask Pope Frank what to do. But he won’t, as he is just another Cafeteria Catholic of the type he fulminates against.
From a practical point of view, the death penalty is pretty stupid. It does not effectively deter crime; it costs more to execute someone than to jail them for life, and it is more about revenge than anything else.
I am not opposed to the death penalty entirely. I feel that there are some crimes where a person should be executed for committing, but the number of instances where I feel that it is appropriate is so negligible as to make it effectively non-existent.
This idiot is the gift that keeps on giving:
“Scalia added that he believes that the Constitution allows for the death penalty as long as there is a fair trial.”
So Mr. Strict Constitutional Interpretation where in the text of this “dead” document does it explicitly state that the death penalty is permissible so long as their is a fair trial. I recall reading something about cruel and unusual punishment during my first year Con Law class.
Con law experts help me out…doesn’t this statement disqualify him from hearing this issue if it’s ever brought before the Supreme Court? (i.e. - constitutionality of the death penalty)
due process of law – you cannot take “life” without due process of law, which includes a fair trial … that’s pretty explicit. It is harder to say that the death penalty in every case is cruel & unusual though I personally think it is (and that in practice it is applied unfairly for due process purposes overall)
I don’t think they will – Justice Kennedy will continue to support the death penalty though his vote was key in narrowing the cases where it could be applied. But, he doesn’t want to go all the way there.
Scalia is kinda right with the “four” statement though in the Glossip case only Breyer and Ginsburg explicitly said they thought it probably was unconstitutional. The other two didn’t sound that enthusiastic about it but did not join Breyer’s dissent that went that far.