Best case: he’s going to review the living shit out of the case, then allow the execution. Which means, I suppose, he’s not as bad a political idealogue as I supposed.

Worst case: he’s trying to prove his “judginess” by actually reviewing something before he interprets the Constitution to death in the coming years.

Knowing absolutely nothing about the man, I’m guessing that with the first thing that comes across his desk being literally a life and death decision, he took the prudent course, giving the man a chance for review. Doesn’t make him a flaming liberal; just means he’s not the heartless monster the man who appointed him is.

Smoke screen. He’s pulling a Chafee. Vote with the liberals when he’s going to lose anyway to make it look like he’s a centrist. That way he won’t take as much heat when votes to overturn Roe and such.

In point of fact, his history on DP cases is mixed. He is after all, religious, and quite a few religious people actually are not inconsistent or hypocritical in their “pro-life” views.

In other words, this may point more to what we can expect from him not so much on DP cases as on abortion and assisted suicide cases.

Be worried.

n41l3d!!1!!1! for my groganesque comma usage.

Don’t get excited. He just drank too much champagne at the swearing-in reception and got confused.

He’s just lubing us up for the Great Reaming (e.g. getting rid of Roe v. Wade) that is coming soon.

Yeah, but his daughter’s a handsome lass.

Just sayin’.

I get the feeling it was planned from the beginning…what better way than to take the heat off Bush for nominating a radical conservative, than by him throwing his very first case?
It’s probably just a one-off token effort, a bone thrown at those to the left of Bush & Co. who’re still desperately searching for a reason to continue to endorse him.
But I certainly hope I’m wrong.

My take is the same as Mr. Gumby. He has less than one day to review the issues – agreeing the stay is more prudent.

Window dressing. He’s reeling us in.

Scalia is bound for the most intemperate level of Dante’s Inferno.

Or, he actually has a mind of his own.
A lot of Supreme Court Judges start going their own way when they are appointed.
What will be funny is when the bedwetters start calling for his impeachment.

Dr. PBJ

I agree with the cynics above. This decision doesn’t look like it will affect anything long term; it is a stay and he can still vote to execute. It demonstrates (as ammunition for the wingnuts) that he is not joined at the hip to Scalia and Thomas.

Bone thrown. Woof.

I went to Memeorandum to get the blog roundup, and here’s what I found:

Vox Day: Does this mean that Justice Alito has officially declared his Souterhood? No, not yet. But there’s no way conservatives can take it as a positive sign either.

The Strata-Sphere: This is the Kennedy-Souter mistake where you let people like Bill Kristol dupe the party into believing they, and only they, know what a ‘true conservative’ is.

The Volokh Conspiracy: On the other hand, it’s possible first evidence of my theory that Alito isn’t going to be as conservative as most people think.

Malkin and others chose the low ground (surprise!) of simply tweaking Ted Kennedy for his concerns that Alito is a terrible threat.

And so far, LGF has no mention of the story, preferring to concentrate about a dozen separate posts on the Danish newspaper that published a cartoon about Mohammed, leading to an outcry in the Muslim world.

But speaking of LGF, this comments thread, about Jimmy Carter’s thoughts on the Hamas election, contains a discussion of presidential term limits that is truly amazing. Highlights:

#33 Robert D 2/1/2006 11:03PM PST

Anyone?

#42 Mike C. 2/1/2006 11:09PM PST

Sorry, no. They are limited to a total of (I think) 10 years max.

Does anyone else think he looks like a bobble-head? He’s got that Stevie Wonder head-thing going.

Dan Someone, I am amazed, you’re right. And relieved, in a way. I guess I overestimated the knowledge people like the LGFers might have behind their ludicrous, insane opinions. My world has been a little bit rocked by the idea that many wingnuts truly don’t know WTF they are talking about. Somehow I thought that because they are so powerful (not the people at LGF but the freaks in office whom they so slavishly follow), their tribe, by and large, actually had some basis in reality, though their interpretations of facts might be reactionary and completely bonkers. It is horrible to realize that these people haven’t even read the Constitution they are currently pulping into toilet paper. I especially like the guy who chimes in to “inform” his fellow poster about the actual circumstances regarding presidential term limits.

Hey, give’em a break! It’s not like the Constitution is posted online anywhere. I mean, what are they supposed to do, drive to Washington DC to go read it?!?!

Actually, now that I think about it, that second guy might be right. There is a provision regarding the amount of time that a person can serve after acceding to the presidency–for example, if he were the VP and the Pres. died. The most anyone can serve is two terms plus no more than two years that might have remained in the previous president’s term. So, the LGF guy is right, I’m wrong, and I’m not too proud to admit it. Still, screw you, LGF, for other sins innumerable and opposition to homo nups global.

er, to be clear, that “provision” I referred to is AKA the 22nd frickin Amendment. Sorry I sounded kinda ignorant there.

My guess, based on “[a]n appeals court will now review Taylor’s claim that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment … [t]he court has agreed to use one of the cases to clarify how inmates may bring last-minute challenges to the way they will be put to death” is that he wants the Supreme Court to rule on those matters, and the stay tells us nothing about how he will rule.

I agree w/ the cynics. Note that he was the SIXTH vote–the stay was a done deal anyway.

This is more neo-conjobism to distract. My prediction: he’s on a short leash to appear human until after the 2006 elections. Then the trap will be sprung.

Not suprising that the Lizardoids don’t know about the two term limit ‘thingy’…I’m suprised they can remember to breath.

Not overturning the stay is essentially a non-issue. It isn’t much of an indicator of anything. Basically, it is a temporary halt to the execution while the circuit court hears the 8th Amendment claim. Now, if the circuit court overturns the death penalty on the 8th Amendment argument (cruel and unusual), then the SCOTUS will be called on to write a real opinion. For that, I have little faith that Alito would side with the anyone other than the Chief, Big Scully and “Pubes” Thomas.

It would be nice to be surprised once in a while, though. I just don’t think it’ll happen.

Well- cautious optimism here, but not holding my breath.
I’m waiting for something about executive power to come up before I make any judgement.

It’s the guy’s first day on the job, the issues are complicated, and he doesn’t know anything about them. He’s just being cautious about voting to kill someone before he’s closely examined the facts and the issues.

Doesn’t mean a lot, except that he’s doing what he said he’d do at his confirmation hearings: Not make up his mind until he’s heard all the facts and examined the law.

As soon as he gets these preliminaries out of the way, he’ll put the hammer down and join Scalia, Thomas, and Rogers in dismantling the Constitution.

Well, it’s interesting.

It’s interesting, coming from a guy who thinks it’s OK to back-shoot a kid running away on the basis that the kid “might be” running away from a crime.

It’s interesting, coming from a guy who sides with the State at every opportunity.

It might be nothing more than ordinary prudence: Alito is new, he didn’t have much chance to review anything, and it’s not like the DPs have been overturned.

The SCOTUS has already made some hair-raising 8th Amendment rulings. The most infamous one which comes to my mind was when the Court ruled that being beaten by guards wasn’t a violation of the 8th Amendment (I think Thomas’ opinion said something about how prisons weren’t tea parties, and rough handling was to be expected).

The DP decision which totally blew my mind, though, was the ruling that being innocent of the crime for which you have been condemned to death is insufficient reason to overturn a death penalty. Because, see, evidence of innocence is NEW evidence, and appeals courts don’t deal with new evidence. Not that the SCOTUS ordered a new trial or anything, though…

When and if Alito rules that lethal injections do violate the 8th Amendment, then I’ll sit up and take notice.

I figure the odds of that happening are somewhere between ‘nil’ and ‘you’ve got to be kidding me.’ After all, what’re we supposed to do instead? Bring back the guillotine?