SCOTUS OKAYS MIDAZOLAM FOR EXECUTIONS

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the use of midazolam in executions did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment

The use of midazolam in executions was challenged after the botched Oklahoma execution of Clayton Lockett on April 29, 2014. Here is how Yahoo News described the execution:

First, a sedative was administered to render him unconscious (which, in this case, was midazolam). Next, a paralytic was added to prevent Lockett from moving or thrashing as he died, while also stopping his breathing. Finally, he received a drug to cause cardiac arrest. In Lockett’s case, the procedure went poorly: He awoke after the administration of the midazolam, which was supposed to render him unconscious, all the while kicking his legs, panting, clenching his teeth, and flailing against the restraints. Lockett continued to struggle, eventually raising his head off the gurney completely and managing to articulate the word “Man” before eventually dying 40 minutes later.

(Please excuse me while I collect myself. The description of poor old Clayton’s agonizing demise was more than I could take. I'm OK now, I've managed to stop laughing.)

In a 5-4 ruling Monday, the Supreme Court turned back challenges to the use of midazolam in executions, holding that its use does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Naturally, the four liberal justices dissented.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, saying that “petitioners failed to establish that any risk of harm was substantial when compared to a known and available alternative method of execution.”

In their dissent, liberal justices Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg went so far as to note their belief that the death penalty itself was unconstitutional.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a scathing dissent, saying that it “would not matter whether the state intended to use midazolam, or instead to have petitioners drawn and quartered, slowly tortured to death, or actually burned at the stake.”

Sotomayor’s dissent seems akin to the ridiculous rant of a deranged person. She must have been smoking some funny tobacco just before she wrote it. Or there is always the possibility that her uber-liberal mindset has addled her brains.

While this ruling is a victory for the death penalty, we’d better enjoy it while we can. When Hillary Clinton becomes President, she will get to appoint several Supreme Court justices and you can bet they will all have the same mindset as Sonia Sotomayor. Then you can kiss the death penalty goodbye.