DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Oral Argument Held November 2, 2020 in The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 Oral Argument Held November 2, 2020 in The USCA Case #20-5240 Document #1880789 Filed: 01/19/2021 Page 1 of 12 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD NOVEMBER 2, 2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT HON. KEVIN OWEN MCCARTHY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 20-5240 HON. NANCY PELOSI, et al., Defendants. MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL OF 139 REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS The following 139 Representative Plaintiffs-Appellants respectfully move this Court to withdraw their appeal for the reasons stated below. The remaining twenty-one Representative Plaintiffs-Appellants and the five Constituent Plaintiffs-Appellants continue to press their appeal, so the withdrawal of these Plaintiffs-Appellants will not materially affect the Court’s consideration and disposition of this case. 1 USCA Case #20-5240 Document #1880789 Filed: 01/19/2021 Page 2 of 12 First, because the following twenty-seven Representative Plaintiffs- Appellants are no longer Members of Congress, their claims challenging House Resolution 965 (“H. Res. 965”)* are now moot. They are: • Bradley Roberts Byrne, Alabama’s 1st Congressional District • Theodore Scott Yoho, Florida’s 3rd Congressional District • George Edward Bell Holding, North Carolina’s 2nd Congressional District • Kenneth Michael Conaway, Texas’s 11th Congressional District • Vincent Ross Spano, Florida’s 15th Congressional District • Paul Cook, California’s 8th Congressional District • Bradley Mark Walker, North Carolina’s 6th Congressional District • Peter Thomas King, New York’s 2nd Congressional District • Denver Lee Riggleman III, Virginia’s 5th Congressional District • Douglas Allen Collins, Georgia’s 9th Congressional District • Gregory Richard Gianforte, Montana’s at-large Congressional District • Gregory Paul Walden, Oregon’s 2nd Congressional District • Robert William Bishop, Utah’s 1st Congressional District * Although H. Res. 965 expired at the end of the 116th Congress, the 117th Congress has specified that H. Res. 965 “shall apply in the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress in the same manner as such resolution applied in the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress” except for minor alterations that are not pertinent here. H.R. Res. 8, 117th Cong. § 3(s) (2021) (enacted). 2 USCA Case #20-5240 Document #1880789 Filed: 01/19/2021 Page 3 of 12 • William Hose Flores Sr., Texas’s 17th Congressional District • Steven Charles Watkins Jr., Kansas’s 2nd Congressional District • Scott Randall Tipton, Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District • David Phillip Roe, Tennessee’s 1st Congressional District • Paul Mitchell III, Michigan’s 10th Congressional District • Ralph Lee Abraham Jr., Louisiana’s 5th Congressional District • William Ballard Hurd, Texas’s 23rd Congressional District • Steven Arnold King, Iowa’s 4th Congressional District • William Robert Woodall III, Georgia’s 7th Congressional District • Frank James Sensenbrenner Jr., Wisconsin’s 5th Congressional District • Martha Kehres Roby, Alabama’s 2nd Congressional District • Peter Graham Olson, Texas’s 22nd Congressional District • Roger Wayne Marshall, Kansas’s 1st Congressional District • Susan Lynn Wiant Brooks, Indiana’s 5th Congressional District Second, the following 112 Representative Plaintiffs-Appellants have decided to withdraw their challenge to the House’s authorization of proxy voting. They are: • Ronald Jack Wright, Texas’s 6th Congressional District • Michael Clifton Burgess, Texas’s 26th Congressional District • Lance Carter Gooden, Texas’s 5th Congressional District • Gregory Francis Murphy, North Carolina’s 3rd Congressional District 3 USCA Case #20-5240 Document #1880789 Filed: 01/19/2021 Page 4 of 12 • Glenn William Thompson Jr., Pennsylvania’s 15th Congressional District • Earl Leroy Carter, Georgia’s 1st Congressional District • Douglas Lee LaMalfa, California’s 1st Congressional District • Lee Michael Zeldin, New York’s 1st Congressional District • Michael Ray Turner, Ohio’s 10th Congressional District • Robert Joseph Wittman, Virginia’s 1st Congressional District • Frederick B. Keller, Pennsylvania’s 12th Congressional District • David S. Schweikert, Arizona’s 6th Congressional District • William Gregory Steube, Florida’s 17th Congressional District • Gregory Joseph Pence, Indiana’s 6th Congressional District • Guy Lorin Reschenthaler, Pennsylvania’s 14th Congressional District • Michael Dennis Rogers, Alabama’s 3rd Congressional District • Gary James Palmer, Alabama’s 6th Congressional District • Barry Dean Loudermilk, Georgia’s 11th Congressional District • William Leslie Johnson, Ohio’s 6th Congressional District • Thomas Miller McClintock, California’s 4th Congressional District • Christopher Douglas Stewart, Utah’s 2nd Congressional District • Brad Robert Wenstrup, Ohio’s 2nd Congressional District • Michael Keith Simpson, Idaho’s 2nd Congressional District • Addison Graves Wilson Sr., South Carolina’s 2nd Congressional District 4 USCA Case #20-5240 Document #1880789 Filed: 01/19/2021 Page 5 of 12 • William Luetkemeyer, Missouri’s 3rd Congressional District • Kenneth Stanton Calvert, California’s 42nd Congressional District • Garland Hale Barr IV, Kentucky’s 6th Congressional District • Timothy Floyd Burchett, Tennessee’s 2nd Congressional District • John Robert Moolenaar, Michigan’s 4th Congressional District • Ralph Warren Norman Jr., South Carolina’s 5th Congressional District • Kevin Ray Hern, Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District • Charles Joseph Fleischmann, Tennessee’s 3rd Congressional District • Devin Gerald Nunes, California’s 22nd Congressional District • Louis Buller Gohmert Jr., Texas’s 1st Congressional District • Robert Brian Gibbs, Ohio’s 7th Congressional District • Timothy Lee Walberg, Michigan’s 7th Congressional District • Morris Jackson Brooks, Alabama’s 5th Congressional District • Ann Louise Wagner, Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District • Brian Jeffery Mast, Florida’s 18th Congressional District • Markwayne Mullin, Oklahoma’s 2nd Congressional District • Robert Edward Latta, Ohio’s 5th Congressional District • Alexander Xavier Mooney, West Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District • Daniel Alan Webster, Florida’s 11th Congressional District • Theodore Paul Budd, North Carolina’s 13th Congressional District 5 USCA Case #20-5240 Document #1880789 Filed: 01/19/2021 Page 6 of 12 • Richard Wayne Allen, Georgia’s 12th Congressional District • Kenneth Robert Buck, Colorado’s 4th Congressional District • James Edward Banks, Indiana’s 3rd Congressional District • Michael Joseph Bost, Illinois’s 12th Congressional District • Ronald Gene Estes, Kansas’s 4th Congressional District • Cathy Anne McMorris Rodgers, Washington’s 5th Congressional District • Steven Ernst Stivers, Ohio’s 15th Congressional District • Michael Garcia, California’s 25th Congressional District • Stephen Allen Womack, Arkansas’s 3rd Congressional District • Darin McKay LaHood, Illinois’ 18th Congressional District • John Trent Kelly, Mississippi’s 1st Congressional District • Randall Keith Weber, Texas’s 14th Congressional District • James French Hill, Arkansas’s 2nd Congressional District • Kevin Patrick Brady, Texas’s 8th Congressional District • James Daniel Bishop, North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District • Michael Patrick Guest, Mississippi’s 3rd Congressional District • Carol Devine Miller, West Virginia’s 3rd Congressional District • Neal Patrick Dunn, Florida’s 2nd Congressional District • David Cheston Rouzer, North Carolina’s 7th Congressional District • Harold Dallas Rogers, Kentucky’s 5th Congressional District 6 USCA Case #20-5240 Document #1880789 Filed: 01/19/2021 Page 7 of 12 • Robert Brown Aderholt, Alabama’s 4th Congressional District • James Austin Scott, Georgia’s 8th Congressional District • David Patrick Joyce, Ohio’s 14th Congressional District • Donald Edwin Young, Alaska’s at-large Congressional District • John Roger Williams, Texas’s 25th Congressional District • William Patrick Huizenga, Michigan’s 2nd Congressional District • William Troy Balderson, Ohio’s 12th Congressional District • John Warren Bergman, Michigan’s 1st Congressional District • George Joseph Kelly, Pennsylvania’s 16th Congressional District • Jason Thomas Smith, Missouri’s 8th Congressional District • Jenniffer Aydin Gonzalez-Colon, Puerto Rico’s at-large Congressional District • Eric Alan Crawford, Arkansas’s 1st Congressional District • Benjamin Lee Cline, Virginia’s 6th Congressional District • Brian Philip Babin, Texas’s 36th Congressional District • Kelly Michael Armstrong, North Dakota’s at-large Congressional District • Jacqueline R. Walorski, Indiana’s 2nd Congressional District • Steven McCarty Palazzo, Mississippi’s 4th Congressional District • Paul Anthony Gosar, Arizona’s 4th Congressional District • Virginia Ann Foxx, North Carolina’s 5th Congressional District 7 USCA Case #20-5240 Document #1880789 Filed: 01/19/2021 Page 8 of 12 • William Joseph Posey, Florida’s 8th Congressional District • Samuel Bruce Graves Jr., Missouri’s 6th Congressional District • Bruce Eugene Westerman, Arkansas’s 4th Congressional District • Thomas P. Tiffany, Wisconsin’s 7th Congressional District • Nicholas Van Campen Taylor, Texas’s 3rd Congressional District • Bryan George Steil, Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District • Peter Allen Stauber, Minnesota’s 8th Congressional District • John Henry Rutherford, Florida’s 4th Congressional District • John Williams Rose, Tennessee’s 6th Congressional District • Daniel Milton Newhouse, Washington’s 4th Congressional District • Daniel P. Meuser, Pennsylvania’s 9th Congressional District • David Frank Kustoff, Tennessee’s 8th Congressional
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Illusion of Control “Consensual” Executions, the Impending Death of Timothy Mcveigh, and the Brutalizing Futility of Capital Punishment
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The illusion of control “Consensual” executions, the impending death of Timothy McVeigh, and the brutalizing futility of capital punishment The death penalty cannot be useful, because of the example of barbarity it gives men. On crimes and punishments, Cesare Beccaria, 1764. There is no proof that the death penalty ever made a single murderer recoil when he had made up his mind, whereas clearly it had no effect but one of fascination on thousands of criminals; in other regards, it constitutes a repulsive example, the consequences of which cannot be foreseen. Reflections on the guillotine, Albert Camus, 1957. If...we are to be sincere in our efforts to reduce violence, there is one type of violence that we can with complete certainty eliminate. That is the killing of criminals by the state. The question is, will people learn to respect life better by threat or by example? And the uniform answer of history, comparative studies and experience is that man is an emulative animal. Norval Morris and Gordon Hawkins, US criminologists. A defendant’s voluntary submission to a barbaric punishment does not ameliorate the harm that imposing such a punishment causes to our basic societal values and to the integrity of our system of justice. Certainly a defendant’s consent to being drawn and quartered or burned at the stake would not license the State to exact such punishments. Whitmore v Arkansas, US Supreme Court, Justice Marshall dissenting, 1990. The death penalty, guns, violence in society, these cast a large cloud on America’s moral leadership.
    [Show full text]
  • “Volunteers,” Suicide and Competency
    KILLING THE WILLING1 Killing the Willing: “Volunteers,” Suicide and Competency JOHN H. BLUME1 I INTRODUCTION Since Gregg v. Georgia2 ushered in the “modern era” of capital punishment,3 there have been 822 executions,4 a number that would 1 Associate Professor of Law, Cornell Law School and Director, Cornell Death Penalty Project. I would like to thank Lynne Soutter for her data collection and research assistance, and Susan Hackett, Amber Pittman, Jennifer Greenough, and Gordon Garrett for their data collection assistance. I would also like to thank those who participated in the Cornell Faculty Workshop for their probing comments and I would also like to thank Greg Alexander, Ted Eisenberg, Steve Garvey, Sheri Johnson, Trevor Morrison and Jeff Rachlinski for their helpful suggestions on previous drafts of this article and Marty Wells for his statistical assistance.. 2 KILLING THE WILLING surprise few who have paid attention to the ongoing national debate about the death penalty. What may surprise some, however, is that 106 of those executions, including the first,5 involved “volunteers,”6 or inmates who chose to waive their appeals and permit the death sentence to be carried out.7 Moreover, for every successful volunteer, there have been numerous attempts, inmates who decided at some point to waive their appeals but subsequently changed their minds.8 When Robert South, my client, decided to waive his appeals, I could understand why he might make that choice. Robert had a brain tumor which could not be surgically removed. It was not fatal, but the tumor disrupted 2 Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The U.S. Supreme Court's Thirty-Year Struggle with One Case About Competency to Waive Death Penalty Appeals
    Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU Law Faculty Articles and Essays Faculty Scholarship 2004 Not to Decide Is to Decide: The U.S. Supreme Court's Thirty-Year Struggle with One Case about Competency to Waive Death Penalty Appeals Phyllis L. Crocker Cleveland State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/fac_articles Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Original Citation Phyllis L. Crocker, Not to Decide is to Decide: The U.S. Supreme Court's Thirty-Year Struggle with One Case about Competency to Waive Death Penalty Appeals, 49 Wayne Law Review 885 (2004) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Articles and Essays by an authorized administrator of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: 49 Wayne L. Rev. 885 2003-2004 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Thu Dec 5 16:10:53 2013 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: https://www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do? &operation=go&searchType=0 &lastSearch=simple&all=on&titleOrStdNo=0043-1621 THE WAYNE LAW REVIEW VOLUME 49 WINTER 2004 NUMBER 4 NOT TO DECIDE IS TO DECIDE: THE U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 1992 Journal
    OCTOBER TERM, 1992 Reference Index Contents: page Statistics n General in Appeals in Arguments iv Attorneys iv Briefs iv Certiorari iv Costs v Judgments, Mandates and Opinions v Original Cases v Parties vi Records vi Rules vi Stays vii Conclusion vii (i) II STATISTICS AS OF JUNE 28, 1993 In Forma Paid Original Pauperis Total Cases Cases Number of cases on docket 12 2,441 4,792 7,245 Cases disposed of......... 1 2,099 4,256 6,366 Remaining on docket 11 342 536 889 Cases docketed during term: Paid cases 2,062 In forma pauperis cases 4,240 Original cases...... 1 Total.. 6,303 Cases remaining from last term 942 Total cases on docket 7,245 Cases disposed of 6,366 Number remaining on docket 889 Petitions for certiorari granted: In paid cases 79 In in forma pauperis cases 14 Appeals granted: In paid cases ., 4 In in forma pauperis cases 0 Total cases granted plenary review 97 Cases argued during term 116 Number disposed of by full opinions Ill Number disposed of by per curiam opinions 4 Number set for reargument next term 0 Cases available for argument at beginning of term 66 Disposed of summarily after review was granted 4 Original cases set for argument 3 Cases reviewed and decided without oral argument 109 Total cases available for argument at start of next term 46 Number of written opinions of the Court 107 Per curiam opinions in argued cases 4 Number of lawyers admitted to practice as of June 28, 1993: On written motion 2,775 On oral motion 1,345 Total 4,120 Ill GENERAL: page 1991 Term closed and 1992 Term convened October 5, 1992; adjourned October 4, 1993 1 Allotment order of Justices entered 972 Bryson, William C, named Acting Solicitor General Janu- ary 20, 1993; presents Attorney General Janet Reno; re- marks by the Chief Justice 619, 865 Clinton, President, attends investiture of Justice Ginsburg 971 Court adjourned to attend Inauguration of President Clin- ton January 20, 1993 425 Court closed December 24, 1992, by order of Chief Justice Days, Drew S., Solicitor General, presented to the Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Docile Bodies" Or Rebellious Spirits?: Issues of Time and Power in the Waiver and Withdrawal of Death Penalty Appeals
    Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 43 Number 2 Winter 2009 pp.459-558 Winter 2009 "Docile Bodies" or Rebellious Spirits?: Issues of Time and Power in the Waiver and Withdrawal of Death Penalty Appeals Avi Brisman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Avi Brisman, "Docile Bodies" or Rebellious Spirits?: Issues of Time and Power in the Waiver and Withdrawal of Death Penalty Appeals, 43 Val. U. L. Rev. 459 (2009). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol43/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Brisman: "Docile Bodies" or Rebellious Spirits?: Issues of Time and Power Articles “DOCILE BODIES” OR REBELLIOUS SPIRITS?: ISSUES OF TIME AND POWER IN THE WAIVER AND WITHDRAWAL OF DEATH PENALTY APPEALS Avi Brisman∗ I. INTRODUCTION This past term, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Baze v. Rees regarding the use of the tri-chemical “cocktail” used to execute inmates on death row—sodium thiopental (also known as sodium pentothal, an ultra-short acting barbiturate to render the individual unconscious), pancuronium bromide (also known as Pavulon, which causes muscle paralysis), and potassium chloride (to stop the heart).1 In Baze, the petitioners neither challenged the constitutionality of the use of lethal injection, in particular, nor the penalty of capital punishment, as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Methods of Death Penalty
    Methods of Execution There are many ways of killing throughout the history and they have varied over time. Just to give you some examples. 1: Hanging (outline) By definition, hanging means“putting to death by suspension by the neck.” Japanese criminal law prescribes that capital punishment should be done by only this method. Hanging is the oldest and most used method of execution. In 2007, up to 454 men and 4 women were hanged in 10 countries which include Bangladesh, Botswana, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Singapore, Sudan and Syria. In early times, it was considered an ideal means because the equipment (tree, a piece of rope and a ladder) was easy to come by and unlike beheading, there is no bloodshed. (how to) There are different ways to do this. a) Short drop: this is done by placing condemned prisoner on the back of a horse or other vehicle with the rope around the neck. Then, vehicle is moved away, leaving the accused dangling from the rope. It was mainly used prior to 1850. b) Suspension hanging: the gallows (the equipment which is used to carry on hanging) are movable, so that the rope can be raised once the person is in place. Iran, for example, is using this method by mobile cranes to hoist the condemned into the air. c) Standard drop: it involves a drop of between 1.2 to1.8 m. this is different from short drop in that this is intended to be sufficient to break the person’s neck. This method was used to execute condemned Nazis.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Punishment in Oklahoma 1835-1966 Michael Owen Riley University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 8-2012 Capital Punishment In Oklahoma 1835-1966 Michael Owen Riley University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Riley, Michael Owen, "Capital Punishment In Oklahoma 1835-1966" (2012). Theses and Dissertations. 518. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/518 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN OKLAHOMA 1835-1966 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN OKLAHOMA 1835-1966 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History By Michael Owen Riley Oklahoma State University Bachelor of Arts in History, 1979 Oklahoma State University Master of Arts in History, 1994 August 2012 University of Arkansas ABSTRACT This doctoral dissertation explores the history of capital punishment in Oklahoma using a systematic case-by-case examination of the death penalty as it has been used in the Sooner state. The author hopes that better knowledge of the extensive history of that institution in Oklahoma’s past will provide insight into the reasons why Oklahoma currently kills its residents at a higher rate than any other politically distinct area in the world for which accurate records are available. This study covers the time period from 1835 with the arrival of the Five Civilized Tribes until 1966 when the last execution by electrocution was performed.
    [Show full text]
  • Volunteering for Execution: Competency, Voluntariness and the Propriety of Third Party Intervention G
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 74 Article 6 Issue 3 Fall Fall 1983 Volunteering for Execution: Competency, Voluntariness and the Propriety of Third Party Intervention G. Richard Strafer Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation G. Richard Strafer, Volunteering for Execution: Competency, Voluntariness and the Propriety of Third Party Intervention, 74 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 860 (1983) This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/83/7403-860 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 74, No. 3 Copyright © 1983 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed bi U.SA. VOLUNTEERING FOR EXECUTION: COMPETENCY, VOLUNTARINESS AND THE PROPRIETY OF THIRD PARTY INTERVENTION G. RICHARD STRAFER* I. INTRODUCTION Eight men have been executed since 1976 when the Supreme Court ruled, in a series of cases, I that the death penalty is constitutional so long as its imposition is accompanied by certain safeguards.2 At one point or another, all but three of these men not only "chose" to forgo further * Appellate Law Fellow, Appellate Litigation Clinical Program, Georgetown University Law Center. J.D., Northeastern University School of Law, 1980; B.A., University of Wiscon- sin-Madison, 1976. The author would like to express his appreciation to the following individuals for their consultation and assistance in collecting research materials for this article: Russell F.
    [Show full text]
  • Prisoner-Assisted Homicide – More ‘Volunteer’ Executions Loom
    Public amnesty international UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Prisoner-assisted homicide – more ‘volunteer’ executions loom 17 May 2007 AI Index: AMR 51/087/2007 When a capital defendant seeks to circumvent procedures necessary to ensure the propriety of his conviction and sentence, he does not ask the State to permit him to take his own life. Rather, he invites the State to violate two of the most basic norms of a civilized society – that the State’s penal authority be invoked only where necessary to serve the ends of justice, not the ends of a particular individual, and that punishment be imposed only where the State has adequate assurance that the punishment is justified . United States Supreme Court Justice, 1990 1 Robert Comer, Christopher Newton and Elijah Page have something in common, aside from being on death row in the USA. Each of these three men is assisting their government in its efforts to kill them. They have given up their appeals and are “volunteering” for execution. Robert Comer is scheduled for execution in Arizona on 22 May 2007, Christopher Newton in Ohio on 23 May, and in the week of 9 July Elijah Page is due to become the first person to be put to death in South Dakota since 1947. In addition, on 4 May 2007, the Tennessee Attorney General requested an execution date for Daryl Holton, a former soldier with a history of depression, who has effectively waived his appeals and has been found competent to do so. The execution of another “volunteer”, Carey Dean Moore, due to be carried out in Nebraska on 8 May 2007, was stopped by the state Supreme Court on 2 May in view of concerns – not raised by Moore – about Nebraska’s use of the electric chair.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Penalty We Can Live with Rudolph J
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Notre Dame Law School: NDLScholarship Notre Dame Law Review Volume 50 | Issue 2 Article 4 12-1-1974 Death Penalty We Can Live With Rudolph J. Gerber Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Rudolph J. Gerber, Death Penalty We Can Live With, 50 Notre Dame L. Rev. 251 (1974). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol50/iss2/4 This Commentary is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A DEATH PENALTY WE CAN LIVE WITH Rudolph J. Gerber* Like perennial philosophy, the death penalty seems indestructible: it buries its judicial undertakers. Recent cases which seemingly strike mortal blows at its existence now exert peculiar impetus to mandate the very thing prohibited. Both state and federal legislation at a broad level seek to reenact, or have re- enacted, varieties of the death penalty more mechanical and less discretionary than any mode of capital punishment in the history of the common law. Another legislative stampede to the execution chambers is a dubious tech- nique for controlling criminal traffic. This commentary advocates some official premeditation over the wisdom of resurrecting death as an advertisement for the value of life. This analysis includes the history, usage, effects, victims, and by-products of capital punishment. I. Background and History of the Death Penalty A.
    [Show full text]
  • USA: the Experiment That Failed: a Reflection on 30 Years of Executions
    Public amnesty international UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The experiment that failed A reflection on 30 years of executions1 16 January 2007 AI Index: AMR 51/011/2007 I have been a judge on this Court for more than twenty-five years… I have no delusions of grandeur and I know my place in the judiciary. My oath requires me to apply the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. I will continue to do so until the Supreme Court concludes that the death penalty cannot be administered in a constitutional manner or our legislatures abolish the death penalty. But lest there be any doubt, the idea that the death penalty is fairly and rationally imposed in this country is a farce. US federal appeals court judge, 20052 Historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote in 1983: “No paradox is more persistent than the historic tension in the American soul between an addiction to experiment and a susceptibility to ideology”. On the one hand, Schlesinger suggested, “Americans are famous for being a practical people, preferring fact to theory, finding the meaning of propositions in results, regarding trial and error, not deductive logic, as the path to truth”. On the other hand, “they also show a recurrent vulnerability to spacious generalities”. 3 The USA’s attachment to the death penalty carries echoes of Schlesinger’s paradox. The facts on the ground say abolish, but an idealised notion of capital punishment says continue. Today, 30 years after Gary Gilmore was shot by firing squad in Utah on the morning of 17 January 1977, restarting executions after almost a decade without them, the USA’s reluctance to let go of judicial killing sets it apart from a clear majority of countries.
    [Show full text]