I Gotta Get Me A New Dictionary
I simply can't keep up with the Associated Press's redefinition of words. Describing the Supreme Court's rejection of a suit trying to get lethal injection declared cruel and unusual, the AP describes the decision as "splintered."
The court decided the case 7-2 against the plaintiffs.
WASHINGTON - The longest pause in executions in the U.S. in 25 years is about to end. A splintered Supreme Court cleared the way Wednesday, approving the most widely used method of lethal injection.
Almost immediately, Virginia lifted its moratorium on the death penalty. Mississippi and Oklahoma said they would seek execution dates for convicted murderers, and other states were ready to follow.A nearly seven-month halt in executions was brought on by the court's decision to review Kentucky's lethal injection procedures, which are similar to those in roughly three dozen states. The break is the longest since a 17-month period ending in August 1982.
Voting 7-2, the conservative court led by Chief Justice John Roberts rebuffed the latest assault on capital punishment, this time by foes focusing on methods rather than on the legality of the death penalty itself. Justice John Paul Stevens voted with the majority on the question of lethal injections but said for the first time that he now believes the death penalty is unconstitutional.
Personally, I would have used another term. I understand why the AP has chosen to spin this as they did; the case was actually quite narrow and only a minority of the large majority backed the Chief Justice's opinion. But it certainly seems odd to call a 7-2 decision splintered. I just can't wait to see the AP describe a 9-0 vote they disagree with. I'm sure they'll call it fractured or something.
By Al, Wednesday, 16 April , 2008 @ 6:27 pm
We were talking about this in one of my classes today (I go to law school). It’s splintered in the fact that there were seven different opinions. Although not unheard of, that’s a lot. But I think when the AP used the word splintered they should have clarified. Just because the Justices who upheld the constitutionality of the lethal injection procedure did so in 6 opinions, does not mean that the Court is necessarily splintered, the Justices are just choosing to rely upon different reasoning. Of course this has practical consequences for the future constitutional inquiry, but I think the AP was wrong to use the word splintered without at least providing explanation.
By Bleepless, Wednesday, 16 April , 2008 @ 7:04 pm
SUPREME COURT JUST BARELY OKAYS CONTROVERSIAL PROCEDURE, by Mukhammad al-Jihad (AP) In a nine to nothing decision, a sharply-divided Supreme Court just barely allowed a horrifying procedure denounced by all right-thinking people. "It cannot be allowed," said Jihad al-Bloodsoaked, imam of Death-to-infidels Mosque in Cleveland. "Never, never, never." Everyone else agreed.
By Rich Horton, Thursday, 17 April , 2008 @ 9:43 am
I dont mind calling it "splintered" either. I actually used this case in my American Government class yesterday as an example of when 7-2 isn’t quite as strong as it sounds. Yes, the JUDGEMENT was solid, but there was much less agreement on the legal reasoning side of the coin. When it comes to the strength of this case as precedent it is much less certain. If you had a single opinion which all seven felt they could sign off on in its reasoning it would be a stronger precedent.