Trump administration appeals to top court to allow resumption of federal executions

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Reuters


Tuesday, 03 Dec 2019 10:33 AM MYT

WASHINGTON, Dec 3 — The US Justice Department yesterday asked the Supreme Court to allow the resumption of the death penalty at the federal level after a 16-year hiatus, hours after an appeals court blocked the department's bid to pave the way for four scheduled executions.

A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the department's request to overturn a judge's decision that at least stalled plans for executing four convicted murderers. The first was scheduled to die on December 9.

US District Judge Tanya Chutkan last month issued a stay putting on hold the planned executions until a long-running legal challenge to the department's lethal injection protocol can be resolved. The appeals court found that the administration had “not satisfied the stringent requirements” to block Chutkan's ruling.

In its application to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department called the district court's position “fundamentally flawed” and argued that the legal challengers' case “wholly lacks merit.”

Read more: https://www.malaymail.com/news/world/2019/12/03/trump-administration-appeals-to-top-court-to-allow-resumption-of-federal-ex/1815525

[Thunderbeast]

1. Continued focus on death, cruelty, and suffering

We know that capital punishment is not a deterrent. We know that an execution costs much more than imprisonment.

So, why the focus?

Vengence and sadism are the only rational explanations. Most of the civilized world has abandoned institutional killing. So should we.

[FiveGoodMen]

4. By one in every three Americans

This cancer has spread far.

[JohnnyRingo]

2. MAGA!

This is what President Dickhead considers a priority in America. We just aren't killing people fast enough.

How long before he comes up with the idea of cyanide showers to speed it up?

[bucolic_frolic]

3. "wholly lacks merit"

A rather disrespectful characterization of the adversary in a legal case, especially so in view of the gravity of the issue involved. I find it difficult to believe courts would entertain frivolous cases, and not have it thrown out prior to appeals. This sounds like dictating to the courts to me.