Thank God we will execute more people via a system that is pretty arbitrary. A dubious think to thank God for, I dare say.

As to the very first comment, its contempt doesn’t really follow. Just one reason … note how he notes “Neither the law nor the facts” requires the reversal. Developments since Gregg suggest just that in the area of the death penalty as a whole, as compared to the specific area of victim impact in the few years in question.

Now, if you — like the majority did — think “the law” DOES require reversal, including an erroneous earlier ruling, fine. But, he doesn’t. Where’s the hypocrisy?

I think the Chief will be writing at least 2 0f the 3–Baze, Heller, Crawford.

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned is that Heller was written by Silberman in the DC Ct and Silberman is very good friends with both Scalia and Thomas(and Roberts I would assume, although to a lesser extent since Roberts is younger. He’s still part of that beltway crowd, though)

I think that increases the likelihood they’ll want to affirm his opinion in its entirety, including the strict scrutiny. It would be interesting to a study as tohow Silberman’s opinions have fared upon Supre Court review, and particularly among Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy. I bet their affirmance rate is pretty high

Whatever your views concerning the importance of Baze and Crawford, the only areas where it appears that the Chief Justice has made a special point of taking a case for himself are those concerning the military or international relations, and other conservative cause celebres like affirmative action, campain finance, and (to some extent, although it divides conservatives), the negative commerce clause. I think Heller is similar in this regard, but don’t expect questions of the standard for challenging execution methods or state voter id requirements to carry the same “historic” quality or importance in the mind of the chief.

Interestingly, the Court’s opinion in eBay does not mention the additional question presented, and in fact cites Continental Paper Bag in support of its holding.

Yes I will be shocked if Kennedy allows the death penalty for a child rapist simply because of his vote in Roper and Atkins, which I might add was a switch in his vote from when he joined the court.
His reasoning was international opinion on the death penalty for the retarded and people under 18 years of age. I do think he will be just as worried about international law and opinion in Louisiana v. Kennnedy. But maybe he will defer to a state right concerning capital punishment.

There’s no evidence that Stevens was ever in any danger of losing Kennedy’s vote in Lawrence. I think the more likely reason is that Kennedy had written in Romer and so Stevens figured he was already the “pointman” on gay rights issues and had done a good job before where he hinted at overturning Bowers so he may as well let him finish the job.

Even if the conservatives win Boumedienne, it’s unlikely to really matter, though. The trials will never happen. If the dems win in November, the trials will never happen and even if McCain wins he’s said he’s closing GItmo and moving everyone to Leavenworth which totally changes everything.

You really think the liberals will win Kennedy? What makes you think that? Kennedy is obviously the swing vote and I know based on Roper and Atkins you’d think he’d side with the petitioner, but he looks set to uphold the death penalty in Baze and child rapists aren’t quite as sympathetic and politically correct as the retarded and kids.

As for other cases, I’m guessing Scalia for Williams, Alito for Santos, and beyond that I haven’t a clue. I can’t wait to see how Kentucky v. Davis pans out.