[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue,
A single Supreme Court Justice can issue a stay awaiting a decision by the
Supreme Court but there is no requirement ever for a unanimous Supreme Court
in any decision. The vote was 6-3 to let the execution proceed despite the
violation of our treaty obligations.
Dissenting opinions pointed out the rush to execute without full
consideration of the law was - ummm - injudicious.
>Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Hi Terry:
>
>Dr. L. brought up something, and Jackie and I wonder too, there was not
>a 100% vote by the Supremes on this. And from reading their decision it
>looked to me like one of the reasons was that they didn't really have
>time to look into the "international" problem before he was executed.
>They did state that they hoped that the state would hold off. But
>obviously the state didn't listen. :(
>
>So my question is why couldn't they have held off executing him, until
>all these questions could be answered. And shouldn't there be a 100%
>decision with the Supremes before they decide that a person should be
>executed as there is with a jury?
>
>Hope you can help us with this?
>
>Sue
>> Hi Ron,
>>
>> We disagree about the death penalty but that is beside the point. Maybe the
>> lives of American citizens abroad matter little. But is the rule of law of
>> so little concern to you?
>>
>> What "clemency people" are there BTW?
>
>--
>Two rules in life:
>
>1. Don't tell people everything you know.
>2.
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
>
>
Best, Terry
"Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
