After keeping him in prison for literally half his life, Georgia executed a 72 year old man.

[Uponthegears]

177. Let's discuss this counselor

You state that Supreme Court jurisprudence evolves over time, yet the ONLY Constitutional defense now being offered for the death penalty (and then only by the consistently intellectually dishonest Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) is premised ENTIRELY upon the proposition that the meaning of the words "cruel and unusual punishment" does not evolve over time. Read the concurring opinions in Glossip v. Gros, the astoundingly dishonest lethal injection case just decided out of Oklahoma.

In Glossip, Scalia states: “Mind you, not once in the history of the American Republic has this Court ever suggested the death penalty is categorically impermissible. The reason is obvious: It is impossible to hold unconstitutional that which the Constitution explicitly contemplates.” He cites the 5th Amendment. Here is the 5th Amendment's SOLE reference to capital punishment, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury . . ."

Here's your chance to show that those who claim that the 8th Amendment does not violate the constitution have even an ounce of principles. (Mind you, I did not go into why I consider the lay reasons for approving of capital punishment, I addressed ONLY those who came on here acting like the constitutionality of the practice was beyond question) Tell us . . . how is Scalia's statement anything other than result oriented horse puckey?

WHAT'S MORE, Scalia and Thomas also go on to attack the very idea that the Eighth Amendment actually evolves, "What happened in the intervening years? Nothing other than the proliferation of labyrinthine restrictions on capital punishment, promulgated by this Court under an interpretation of the Eighth Amendment that empowered it to divine “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958) (plurality opinion)—a task for which we are eminently ill suited. . . . If we were to travel down the path that Justice BREYER sets out for us and once again consider the constitutionality of the death penalty, I would ask that counsel also brief whether our cases that have abandoned the historical understanding of the Eighth Amendment, beginning with Trop, should be overruled. That case has caused more mischief to our jurisprudence, to our federal system, and to our society than any other that comes to mind."

Is Trop and "aberration" too?

I will be glad to debate the fallacies which underlie popular support for the death penalty, however, when you attack a criticism of UNPRINCIPLED RIGHT WING ZEALOTS like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito as "self-righteous, obstinate, disrespectful, or just a [being] a jerk and call Furman an "aberration," you'd best bring something to back it up. Oh, btw, in this area, given the ad hominem flotsam that spews from Scalia's pen, you should take care before attacking the zeal of ANYONE who opposes this barbaric practice.