Stevens moved to the left on the death penalty and affirmative action laws.

Completely false, but whatever you say.

I actually thought he evolved on his views for these issues, as well. I'm looking forward to this discussion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/washington/18memo.html

Those who voted to uphold the death penalty in 1976, he said, “relied heavily on our belief that adequate procedures were in place” to treat death penalty cases with special care so as to minimize bias and error.

“Ironically, however,” he continued, “more recent cases have endorsed procedures that provide less protections to capital defendants than to ordinary offenders.”

In other words, his position hasn't changed, and unlike the Times writer who seems so eager to put words in his mouth, he has not "renounced the death penalty."

His position is and always has been that the death penalty itself isn't inappropriate--what's inappropriate is rushing someone into the death chamber without "adequate procedures in place to treat death penalty cases with special care so as to minimize bias and error."

I suspect a closer examination of his views on affirmative action would reveal a similar consistency.

May I suggest you research Steven's jurisprudence beyond one NYT opinion piece.

...He (Turnow) types condescendingly,

as if I had never read death penalty decisions.


Stevens previously believed that the death penalty was not a violation of the Eighth Amendment (Gregg v. Georgia; Jurek v. Texas; Proffitt v. Florida), however, in a move toward the left he wrote in Baze v. Rees:

"In sum, just as Justice White ultimately based his conclusion in Furman on his extensive exposure to countless cases for which death is the authorized penalty, I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty represents “the pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purposes.

A penalty with such negligible returns to the State [is] patently excessive and cruel and unusual punishment violative of the Eighth Amendment .” Furman, 408 U. S., at 312 (White, J., concurring).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-5439.ZC1.html#19


Scalia had such a WTC? reaction to Stevens's opinion, that he wrote (again, Baze v. Rees):

"I join the opinion of Justice Thomas concurring in the judgment. I write separately to provide what I think is needed response to Justice Stevens’ separate opinion."

and

"What prompts Justice Stevens to repudiate his prior view and to adopt the astounding position that a criminal sanction expressly mentioned in the Constitution violates the Constitution?"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-5439.ZC2.html

I wasn't referring to only the death penalty. Death penalty decisions are not the sum total of a Justice's "jurisprudence".

Scalia, as usual, goes right to the bloodletting. What is it about you Republibaggers being so sadistic?

The rights of persons accused of capital crimes are mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but there is no endorsement of capital punishment.

At any rate, I stand by my earlier post.

Which ruling/decision/case would you like to discuss next?