You already knew the appeal in the SCOTUS against lethal injection as a means of executing prisoners was toast based on Justice Scalia's coy refusal to even consider the constitutional basis of the case. Sure enough, this past Wedensday the highest court ruled that lethal injection - a method banned as too inhumane in many states for the euthanasia of animals - was a humane method of carrying out an execution.
Chief Justice Roberts opined that "some risk of pain is inherent in any method of execution - no matter how humane," and said that risk was necessary to carry out the death penalty, which is unquestionably legal.
He also set a high bar for future challenges to carrying out the death penalty. To halt an execution, defense lawyers must show that there is a "substantial risk" that the condemned prisoner will suffer "severe pain," the chief justice said. And they have yet to provide such evidence, he added.
Justices Scalia and Thomas rejected even that criteria, and said they would "reject all challenges to an execution method unless it was 'deliberately designed to inflict pain.'" (The president, of course, agrees, unless the prisoner is to be kept alive.)
The ACLU says that the Montana Constitution sets a higher standard for human dignity than the U.S. Constitution, and that lethal injection by Montana standards is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment.
Here in the state, most consider the death penalty politically inviolate. However, there's a movement afoot in Montana to ban it, with a variety of political supporters. A death penalty ban passed the Montana state Senate in the last session, thanks to support from conservative Christian Republican legislators. (Naturally Scott Sales quashed the bill in the House over worries of how it would hurt him politically.)
Personally ambivalent about the concept of executions, I am appalled at the unequal application of the punishment, the number of wrongly convicted prisoners on death row, and the cost and legal efforts it requires to implement. Apparently Montanans from across the political spectrum agree with me. Perhaps, with a new House majority leader, we could actually have a debate on the issue the next go-round, eh?
A case worth at least hundreds of thousands of dollars is moving closer to final consideration, at least at the District Court level.
Right now, there are dams all over Montana that operate for private profit without compensating the state for their presence on public land. Following a suit filed by a private party, the State intervened to demand their rents. Unsurprisingly, PPL and Avista refused. But a third dam owning company decided to save the lawyers' fees and just start paying rent -- which may give a good indication of where this case is likely to end up.
The suit will move the proceeds into the school trust.
The judge has already basically ruled that the corporations can be charged rent. The question now is simply what that rent will be.
It looks like Mike McGrath is in. The man who won his second term as Attorney General while uncontested is the first announced candidate for chief justice.
McGrath goes into this the prohibitive favorite. He is well-respected, has solid fundraising ability, and is popular in the state. Plus he just has high name ID. Anyone looking to mount a challenge will definitely think twice.
On top of that, McGrath will no doubt be a good chief justice. The job of the chief justice is to be a justice, which McGrath will likely do well, and oversee the administrative end of the court. McGrath has managed fairly large operations and comes in with a background that will be helpful.
