SCOTUS Execution Case Exemplifies The Thomas-Alito Dream Team At Its Best |
1 Trending: Raskin Says SPLC Donors Won’t Sue Over Fraud Because They ‘Love … How Effective It’s Been.’ He’s Right
2 Trending: More Voter Fraud Charges Scream For The Senate To Pass The SAVE America Act
3 Trending: Stop Blaming Conservatives For The Left’s Baby Bust
4 Trending: Social Justice Therapy Is Teaching Clinicians That A Child’s Race Matters More Than Her Abuser’s Crimes
SCOTUS Execution Case Exemplifies The Thomas-Alito Dream Team At Its Best
Whereas Thomas plants the beacon on where SCOTUS should be on an issue, Alito is willing to stake out a milder position to help get it there over time.
Share Article on Facebook
Share Article on Twitter
Share Article on Truth Social
Share Article via Email
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito often find themselves on the same side of cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. But what generally goes unnoticed is how the two justices’ similar yet differing approaches to the law come together to advance better constitutional interpretation for the country.
This dynamic was on full display in the court’s Thursday decision in Hamm v. Smith. The case centered around an Alabama man seeking to overturn his capital punishment sentence on the argument that he is intellectually disabled and therefore can’t be executed under the Eighth and 14th Amendments.
In a 5-4 ruling, with Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joining the Democrat appointees, SCOTUS declined to rule on the lower courts’ handling of the matter. The high court said that it made a mistake in agreeing to consider the case (“The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted”).
Thomas and Alito disagreed. The two justices authored separate dissenting opinions explaining why the majority got it wrong and why the court should have ruled on the issue. More to the point, however, these opinions demonstrate how they work together to move the court’s jurisprudence in the right direction.
In his solo dissent, Thomas argued that the court’s Hamm........