« US Sentencing Commission schedules hearings for early March on proposed guideline amendments | Main | US Sentencing Commission creates helpful information webpage on "First Step Act Earned Time Credits" »
January 26, 2024
Will other states move to nitrogen after Alabama's pioneering success with new execution method?
The question in the title of this post is was my first question in the wake of last night's newa that Alabama carried out an historic first execution using nitrogen gas. This New York Times article provides this account of the execution and what it could mean:
Alabama carried out the first American execution using nitrogen gas on Thursday evening, killing a convicted murderer whose jury had voted to spare his life and opening a new frontier in how states execute death row prisoners.
The execution of the condemned prisoner, Kenneth Smith, 58, began at 7:53 p.m. Central time, and he was pronounced dead at 8:25 p.m. in an execution chamber in Atmore, Ala., according to John Q. Hamm, the state prison system’s commissioner. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the execution to move forward over the objections of its three liberal justices and concerns from death penalty opponents that the untested method could cause Mr. Smith to suffer.
Mr. Smith, who was strapped to a gurney with a mask placed on his head, appeared conscious for several minutes after the nitrogen gas started flowing into the mask, depriving him of oxygen, according to a pool report from five Alabama journalists who witnessed the execution. State lawyers had previously claimed in court filings that an execution by nitrogen would ensure “unconsciousness in seconds.” He then “shook and writhed” for at least two minutes before beginning to breathe heavily for several minutes. Eventually, the journalists said, his breathing slowed until it was no longer apparent.
Mr. Hamm said it looked like Mr. Smith had tried to hold his breath as long as he could, and he downplayed Mr. Smith’s body movements, saying “nothing was out of the ordinary from what we were expecting.”...
Lee Hedgepeth, a reporter in Alabama who witnessed the execution, said Mr. Smith’s head moved back and forth violently in the minutes after the execution began. “This was the fifth execution that I’ve witnessed in Alabama, and I have never seen such a violent reaction to an execution,” Mr. Hedgepeth said.
Mr. Smith was one of three men convicted in the 1988 murder of Elizabeth Sennett, whose husband, a pastor, had recruited them to kill her.
It was the second time Alabama had tried to kill Mr. Smith, after a failed lethal injection in November 2022 in which executioners could not find a suitable vein before his death warrant expired. Mr. Smith’s lawyers and the state’s attorney general, Steve Marshall, said Thursday’s execution was the first that had been carried out by nitrogen anywhere in the world.
Other states have looked to Alabama’s experience as they face mounting problems obtaining lethal injection drugs because of pressure from medical groups, activists and lawyers. Mississippi and Oklahoma have authorized their prisons to carry out executions by nitrogen hypoxia, as the method is known, if they cannot use lethal injection, though they have never tried to do so. “Our proven method offers a blueprint for other states and a warning to those who would contemplate shedding innocent blood,” Mr. Marshall said, suggesting that the availability of an “efficient” execution method could act as a deterrent to criminals.
The Supreme Court’s order allowing the execution to go forward did not give an explanation, as is often the case when the justices decide on emergency applications. The court’s three liberal members disagreed with the majority’s decision.
In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor voiced concerns about Alabama’s new method. “Having failed to kill Smith on its first attempt, Alabama has selected him as its ‘guinea pig’ to test a method of execution never attempted before,” she wrote. “The world is watching.”
Justice Elena Kagan, a separate dissent joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that she would pause the execution to give the court time to examine the “exceptional circumstances” surrounding Alabama’s new method of execution and Mr. Smith’s challenges.
The dissents from Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are available at this link. In addition to "the world" watching, states have surely been watching this case closely. That lower courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, refused to interfere with this novel execution method likely will lead some some state legislators and prison officials to consider more seriously about nitrogen gas as a means of carrying out a death sentence.
At the same time, defendants facing execution by means of lethal injection might just prod states to adopt this new execution method. In some states, defendants have contested lethal injection execution protocols by arguing that nitrogen gas would provide a more humane means to execute. After this Alabama execution, such arguments may now be somewhat more forceful and may make some states even more likely to adopt nitrogen gas execution protocols.
January 26, 2024 at 03:25 AM | Permalink
Comments
First of all, I'm all 'broke up' about Smith being poked with needles during the 2022 execution attempt. Very rarely do we read about the victim Liz Stennett, being stabbed repeatedly until she was dead.
Second. What is with the fascination of the media with discussing the last meal the executed prisoner ate? It was the header on the first article that I read this morning.
Third. Of course the first inmate that dies from a new execution method is going to be referred to as a 'guinea pig'. I suppose Charlie Brooks was labeled that with the first lethal injection in 1982.
Fourth. I am sure other states were watching this execution closely. How many will have the guts to proceed with this new method remains to be seen. Will the anti-DP forces try to influence suppliers not to sell nitrogen gas and masks to the states? I could go on but other commenters will want to chime in.
Posted by: DaveP | Jan 26, 2024 7:53:30 AM
The world isn't watching. Very few people really care about the so-called suffering of this animal. Good riddance.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 26, 2024 9:47:39 AM
How, under Federal Constitutional law (applicable to the states thru the 14th Amendment) was the Judge here permitted to impose the death penalty upon Mr. Smith, after the jury had voted to spare his life and impose a life sentence? I don't believe that this could have happened in my home state of Kentucky, where the jury recommends a sentence and the Judge cannot impose an actual sentence that is greater than the jury's recommendation (although the Judge may impose a sentence that is less than the jury's recommendation). i hate to seem naive, but there seems to be something inherently wrong with the Judge being able ot impose a sentence more several than that recommended by the jury (especially a death sentence, where the jury recommended only a life sentence. What am I missing here?
Posted by: Jim Gormley | Jan 26, 2024 9:52:50 AM
Jim: so-called "jury override" was relatively common in capital cases in a few states in the 1980s and 1990s, with judges often exercising a form of judicial sentencing discretion to impose a death sentence when they determined a jury had recommended too light a sentence. Over time, some states eliminated this authority (or limited override to only reducing sentences as in Kantucky) and/or fewer judges have use this power where it is still allowed. Many have argued that jury override death sentences should be deemed categorically unconstitutional, especially in the wake of SCOTUS rulings like Ring and Hurst. But SCOTUS has never ruled that this form of sentencing discretion is unconstitutional, and SCOTUS has allowed a number of persons sentenced like Smith long ago to be executed.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 26, 2024 10:27:32 AM
Jim, you are not missing anything. The unusual aspect about this case is the first trial resulted in a conviction with a 10-2 jury recommendation for death. It got overturned because of a jury selection issue. The retrial resulted in another conviction with an 11-1 recommendation for life imprisonment. The judge overrode it and the case proceeded in state and federal courts without any reversals for that issue.
I must admit that is hard to understand. But, Alabama's law allows that.
Posted by: DaveP | Jan 26, 2024 10:29:26 AM
After the decision in Ring, the jury has to unanimously find the existence of statutory aggravators beyond a reasonable doubt. But once a jury has made the death eligibility determination, states are free to allocate the final decision as they see fit.
In my state, if, after determining that there is a statutory aggravating circumstance, the jury is unable to reach a unanimous decision on death vs. life, the trial court gets to determine the sentence. Other states allow a verdict that is less than unanimous, and some states (like Alabama) make clear that the final verdict is merely a recommendation that the trial court can override. So far, the U.S. Supreme Court has not found any problem with override statutes.
Posted by: tmm | Jan 26, 2024 10:49:20 AM
It's reported that the killer suffered (or "writhed") for two minutes during the execution. The majority of us won't be anywhere near lucky enough to suffer for only two minutes on the way to our deaths. In no sense can that be considered the super-added pain that the Supreme Court has said is impermissible. See Baze and Bucklew. With that as the state of play, the answer to the question in Doug's heading is yes, other states will move toward this method of execution.
P.S. The number of executions fell off considerably for about 20 years up until about 8 years ago, but has stabalized since then, as has public support for the death penalty, which has been at a majority (53% now) for 50 years.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 26, 2024 2:10:29 PM
Bill,
That reaction could very well have been planned ahead of time. Why not get sympathy and try to help the next guy out.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 26, 2024 3:39:11 PM
TarlsQtr --
Yup. Their defense lawyers coach them. In the name of honesty, of course.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 26, 2024 4:45:00 PM
from the "guardian.com" today:
"The execution took about 22 minutes. eyewitness statements from reporters present in the death chamber suggested that Smith’s death was anything but humane".
Marty Roney of the Montgomery Advertiser reported that between 7.57pm local time and 8.01pm, “Smith writhed and convulsed on the gurney. He took deep breaths, his body shaking violently with his eyes rolling in the back of his head.”
Roney’s report continued: “Smith clenched his fists, his legs shook … He seemed to be gasping for air. The gurney shook several times.”
The Rev Jeff Hood, Smith’s spiritual adviser, was at Smith’s side for the execution, and said prison officials in the room “were visibly surprised at how bad this thing went”. He went on to describe the death in more graphic terms, saying it was “the most horrible thing I’ve ever seen.”
“What we saw was minutes of someone struggling for their life,” Hood said.
Continuing on "guardian.com": "Smith appeared to remain conscious for several of those minutes, at times appearing to shake and writhe on the gurney and pull against his restraints. This was followed by several minutes of heavy breathing until his breathing was no longer perceptible".
Further: "Hundreds of Jewish clergy and community leaders across the US signed a letter
calling for a halt (to this method)".
“Just the idea of using gas for executions is an affront to our community,” the co-founder of L’chaim, Mike Zoosman, said. “The NAZI legacy of experimentation to find the most expeditious way to rid our community of undesirable prisoners is an undercurrent for anyone who is aware of that history that should not be repeated in Alabama, or anywhere.”
Well said.
The poor victim's son commented that the focus today was on Alabama's novel method of execution instead of on his mother, which he believes is an injustice in and of itself.
Did Alabama need to do this? Not at all.
Posted by: SG | Jan 26, 2024 8:57:07 PM
Tarls
Any evidence that a defense attorney anywhere ever advised their client to do what you claim? And I won't be holding my breath for your response.
Posted by: SG | Jan 26, 2024 8:58:51 PM
Bill Otis: While I am mostly against the death penalty, I find that this defendant was particularly deserving of it. He was (one of 3) defendant(s) hired by the victim's husband, a pastor, to kill her, a murder for hire. They held her down and repeatedly stabbed her until she expired; a murder for hire. To me, this was a depraved set of acts, reprehensible in a moral society that is governed by laws. All of that said, I have learned that the public surveys about the so-called support for the death penalty (53%, you say) are wrong for a practical reason. In my home state of Kentucky, the public opinion surveys reveal support for the death penalty above 60% (and sometimes even as high as 67%). Yet, in 2009, there were 106 "death qualified" criminal jury trials held in Kentucky. Out of those cases, the jury recommended the death penalty in 0 cases. In other words, one's opinion changes dramatically when they put you in the jury box and ask you to look another man in the eyes and say, "Kill Him.". Opinions are just hypothetical. This is why Kentucky has only 26 people on its Death Row. And Kentucky has executed only 5 people since 1954. 2 of the last 3 people executed in Kentucky withdrew their appeals and demanded to be executed. Interestingly, many of the people on Federal Death Row in Terre Haute, Indiana are there for committing murders of guards or other inmates inside prisons, while already serving [multiple] life sentences. If Trump is elected President again in 2024, one thing I see him doing again is ordering that many of those on Federal Death Row be executed.
Posted by: Jim Gormley | Jan 26, 2024 11:37:00 PM
SG --
"The poor victim's son commented that the focus today was on Alabama's novel method of execution instead of on his mother, which he believes is an injustice in and of itself."
An injustice you are happy to join by focusing your post on the killer, his execution, and the method of execution while saying zip about the murder victim and her suffering.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 26, 2024 11:48:07 PM
Jim Gormley --
The other side of that coin is that in Massachusetts, where state law deleted the death penalty long ago and public opinion is against it, the jury in Boston (a very liberal city) took little time to unanimously give it to the Boston Marathon killer in his federal trial.
Actually, you and I don't differ that much on the DP: It should be (and is) used with caution, but it would be wrong to abolish it entirely, because there are some cases so grotesque that nothing else even approaches justice.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 26, 2024 11:53:20 PM
SG,
I’ve had dogs put to sleep in that manner. None have done more than a large sigh for their last breath.
Since half the equation dies and the other half benefits from keeping it quiet, I have no evidence that the defense attorney instructed him to do it. Did I claim otherwise?
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 27, 2024 12:01:01 AM
Tarls:
You penned: "Yup. Their defense lawyers coach them. In the name of honesty, of course."
Where I come from, this appears to be a "claim". Not from where you're from? Just curious.
Posted by: SG | Jan 27, 2024 1:12:25 AM
SG: the "coach" statement was made by Bill Otis, not by TarlsQtr.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 27, 2024 3:44:16 AM
Just bring back firing squads. It is not difficult to produce a painless death. The pursuant of medical or novel methods is silly.
Posted by: justme123 | Jan 27, 2024 8:28:24 AM
Prof. Berman,
Thanks for the correction. And I apologize to Tarls for that misdirected comment. My bad.
Posted by: SG | Jan 27, 2024 11:16:58 AM
Governor Ivey likes to fancy herself as pro-victims' rights. No, the only reason she signed Smith's death warrant was to make herself look "tough" on crime. Yes, Smith's crime was very atrocious but life without parole would have prevented him from endangering society on the outside ever again. The governor herself has abused and molested trans-children by subjecting them to persecution and bullying. What about THOSE child victims, Ms. Victims" Rights? She opposes the rights of poor people and non-whites to have voting rights. She also has no compunction about dressing in drag or in "black" face. When she apologized for using "black" face, it was only because she was CAUGHT in the act. She has no remorse for her actions as she has no conscience!
Ivey cares only about herself and her fellow rich right-wing "Christian" nationalists. If she thought she could gain extra mileage to her career by inflicting the death penalty on her lesbian lover on a trumped up charge, I would not put it past her to do so. It would prove to her core supporters how much she shares their hatred of LGBT people! Civil rights and civil liberties be damned! She sure treated her lover shabbily when she was running for re-election, fearing that her lesbian lover's presence at her residence would jeopardize her re-election.
Posted by: william delzell | Jan 27, 2024 1:13:17 PM
william dezell --
At first, I was quite unhappy with your commentary, when you branded Justice Thomas a "male Aunt Jemima."
I've changed my mind.
It's true that your epithet tossed at the Justice was point-blank racism, but, oddly, it has its virtues: You're one person here who (1) is full throated in behalf of the Left, (2) signs his name, and (3) has the honesty to say out loud what they all think but, out of PR concerns, only hint at obliquely.
So in addition to the Aunt Jemima remark, you now go after the (female) Governor of Alabama in a way that reeks of sexism and, as an added bonus, take a crack at her for being a "lesbian."
I personally have no idea if she is and could care less, since that has nothing to do with either the death penalty generally of its use in this hit-man case. But it speaks volumes for your allies on the Left, the folks you represent with admirable, and highly unusual, candor.
Your substantive views of blacks, women and gays are disgusting, but your forthcomingness is a breath of fresh air.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 27, 2024 5:08:37 PM
I figured that Bill Otis would respond to my comments before anybody else did, as this usually happens. I also appreciate the fact that he views me as honest.
My criticisms of Clarence Thomas and Kay Ivey were not attacks on blacks or women at all! Indeed, most blacks (and many women) oppose both these people and rightly view THEM as sexist and racist.
Governor Ivey, to me, is even more repugnant than Clarence Thomas as she makes a career of attacking only marginalized groups who have few if any major protectors. Ivey would not dare attack any group that enjoys major statewide respectability--very cowardly. She would never dare to question the patriotism of veterans as they and their loved ones would rightly crucify her if she did!
As for Ivey's portrayal of trans- and drag-people as child-groomers, some of Ivey's chief supporters such as Gabrielle Hanson are groomers of minors instead. Gabrielle Hanson last fall ran unsuccessfully for Mayor of Franklin, TN, in Williamson County--the most conservative (or should I say, right-wing) part of TN's 95 counties. Miraculously she lost when several investigative reporters discovered that she had done prison time for pimping young girls for prostitution. The fact that she surrounded herself with unsavories as the Moms For Liberty, the Proud Boys, and Nazi Holocaust-deniers did not help her cause. While everybody feared she would win big, she ended up losing big. Her right-wing extremism was even too much for Tennessee!
It has been my experience that those politicians like Kay Ivey who make a career of exploiting the fear-of-crime issues and of scapegoating and slandering non-conformists like drag queens and trans-children often have bigger skeletons in their closets than the people whom they persecute. Often, these politicians are the REAL predators instead of the individual LGBT people whom they use as political punching bags. In other words, Ivey is a bully, and we have to stop bullies, whether in school or in the political arena.
The people who opposed this particular execution NEVER wanted Smith released so he could harm again. If the Manson people who committed equally heinous crimes never could get parole in supposedly liberal California, then Smith could never get it in Alabama.
Maybe I will think of some other things to say later on.
Posted by: william delzell | Jan 27, 2024 7:20:07 PM
William Delzell,
Evidence that “most” blacks and “many” women see Thomas and Ivey as racist and sexist?
Do you count “Aunt Jemima” blacks in that analysis? Can you define what makes one?
Finally, a candidate cannot control who supports her. Your diatribe about Ivey being supported by Hansen is meaningless. After all, it was a Bernie supporter who shot up a Republican softball practice. That’s not on Bernie.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 28, 2024 12:04:58 AM
As for Clarence Thomas, a large number of Congresswomen in 1991 staged a major protest at the Supreme Court during Thomas's confirmation hearings when Anita Hill (a fellow conservative like Thomas) made allegations that Clarence Thomas created a sexually hostile working environment when she was in his employ. Thomas barely won confirmation as enough people in the Senate had concerns over his answers to the charges. He has constantly voted against a woman's right to have an abortion when she needs it. The list goes on.
As for Gabrielle Hanson, despite her unsubstantiated attacks on trans- and drag- people as groomers of children, she herself was a female pimp who enticed female minors into prostitution. She did time for it. She failed to disclose this to the public during her campaign until major investigative reporters like Phil Williams of Nashville forced her to come clean on the issue. Other people who make a career of persecuting marginalized people like trans- and drag-activists often have bigger skeletons in their closet than the people whom they target. Governor Ivey has never spoken out against this type of bigotry and indeed she herself has shamelessly promoted it as governor. Her legislation is not designed to protect children from predators but to simply marginalize and to stigmatize those who are different than her. When she was caught doing "black" face and other offensive activities, she was only sorry she was caught. When she forced her lesbian lover out of her residence during her gubernatorial campaigns, she was more concerned with her own election than she was in "family" values. A true family values advocate would not have shunned a family member just to save her career.
Posted by: william delzell | Jan 28, 2024 3:23:51 PM
William Delzell,
In other words, you can’t (or don’t want to) answer.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 28, 2024 3:37:38 PM
Can't win!
Posted by: william delzell | Jan 28, 2024 4:58:59 PM
No, you didn’t answer.
That Thomas faced unfounded accusations says nothing about how blacks and women feel about him.
You display no evidence regarding Ivey either.
And, again, what makes one an “Aunt Jemima” black?
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 28, 2024 7:25:44 PM
The terms, Aunt Jamima or Uncle Tom, denote those blacks (female and male respectively)that sell out their fellow blacks to the demands of white racists. Clarence Thomas by his votes for white racist Republicans fits this bill. I use the term, Male Aunt Jamima, as another sign of disgust toward this person. His decision, for example, in 2000 to allow the state of Florida to rig its presidential vote by suppressing black voters shows Thomas's willingness to betray black voters in order to get Bush, Jr. elected. His opposition to a woman's right to abortion safety shows his contempt toward female American citizens.
Posted by: william delzell | Jan 28, 2024 9:22:49 PM
Ah, so if they don’t vote for policies you want, they are”Aunt Jemima.”
You still haven’t shown that blacks and women hate him…
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 28, 2024 10:07:58 PM
william delzell --
You seem to speak with a civil tongue, but you're making a big mistake:
You cannot refer to a black person derisively as "Aunt Jemima" any more than you can refer to him or her as a "ni**er." That was never acceptable in my book, but even if it was at some point, it isn't now. It doesn't matter how bad you think they are, and there is no exemption for liberals to do it.
It's racist and it's out, period.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 29, 2024 9:52:40 AM
The overwhelming majority of blacks hate Thomas because, even though he owes Affirmative Action and welfare his rise to a college education and later wealth, he does not want other people, especially other blacks, to enjoy the benefits he enjoyed. Now that he no longer needs Affirmative action and welfare, especially now that he gets "welfare" from wealthy right-wing white racists who pay for luxury junkets for him and his wife, he wants to junk Affirmative Action for blacks. The fact, however, that Affirmative Action benefits chiefly rich WHITE women, doesn't change his hostility to black access to Affirmative Action. He also opposes voting rights for blacks and other low-income people. Many women hate him because of his sexually predatory conduct in the form of denying abortion rights for a mother's health, and the like.
So, don't tell me that Clarence Thomas is a role model or spokesperson for black rights! He's a fraud and the label, "male Aunt Jamima," sticks.
Posted by: william delzell | Jan 29, 2024 9:59:04 AM
P.S. Another hater of federal welfare in the form of Medicare was Ayn Rand. Yet, she had no compunction of using Medicare for HERSELF when she needed it; rather, she did not want anybody else except herself to have access to it.
Posted by: william delzell | Jan 29, 2024 10:00:42 AM
william delzell --
"The overwhelming majority of blacks hate Thomas..."
Source?
"especially now that he gets "welfare" from wealthy right-wing white racists who pay for luxury junkets for him and his wife..."
The definition of a white racist is a white person who wants nothing to do with blacks, not one who seeks out their company.
"Affirmative Action benefits chiefly rich WHITE women..."
???
"Many women hate him because of his sexually predatory conduct in the form of denying abortion rights for a mother's health, and the like."
The question in the abortion case, Dobbs, was whether the text of the Constitution contains a right to abortion. It doesn't, which you can see for yourself simply by reading it. That is what the Court, by a big majority, held. The Constitution can't be made to say what you want it to simply because that's what you prefer. As Justice Scalia noted, it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 29, 2024 10:19:15 AM
Otis, as a man, you will never have to personally deal with abortion as you can't get pregnant yourself unless you are Arnold Swartzenegger in the "KIndergarten Cop," movie. Your wife or daughter, however, may have to deal with that issue. To me, a man who opposes a woman's right to an abortion is like a woman who supports male-only draft registration while hollering for equal right. Both this particular man and this particular woman are out of order as they are infringing on the other sex's rights.
As for the Constitution, it started out as a blatantly racist and classist document that required a few amendments after the Civil War during Reconstruction and several times later in an effort to undo its racist, sexist, and classist features.
Am I the only one in this blog that does not share right-of-center views? I guess you all are accustomed to getting your news from sources or echo-chambers that you agree with. Me, I have to get my information from a hodge/podge of rightist, centrist, and leftist sources.
Posted by: william delzell | Jan 29, 2024 11:15:41 AM
william delzell --
The only job given to a Supreme Court Justice is to say what the law is, not what in his or her opinion it should have been or should now become.
There is a process for amending the Constitution, and as you note, this has happened. So it's not impossible. But that job is given over to the people and the political process, not to unelected judges or justices.
The Constitution as it stands contains no right to abortion. If the country wants to change that, fine, it can do so. Until it does, Justice Thomas's vote in Dobbs was, like the other votes in the majority, correct. The Constitution says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say.
"Am I the only one in this blog that does not share right-of-center views?"
The blog comments section is overwhelmingly pro-defendant. TarlsQtr, federalist and I for the most part do not share that sentiment, but we are in a distinct minority. The blog owner, Doug Berman, is center-left with a pretty strong libertarian streak. If you actually think the blog is dominated by the right, you haven't been reading it very long.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 29, 2024 2:40:57 PM
Point of information: The blog comments section is certainly now overwhelmingly comments by Bill Otis, TarlsQtr and federalist. Based on my very rough accounting, since just the start of 2024, this trio has posted nearly 250 comments. Over that time, other than Doug B, I think there have been well fewer than 100 comments from everyone else combined (and some of the "everyone else" may be conservative based on the comment).
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 29, 2024 4:23:46 PM
Doug --
The number of COMMENTS may well be majority conservative, but the number of COMMENTERS is majority liberal by a pretty big margin.
Yes, I talk a lot. What can I tell you? I'm a lawyer!
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 29, 2024 4:33:16 PM
Bill, you referenced the "blog COMMENTS section." I thought it useful, in light of your comment, to note that the blog comments section is now overwhelmingly comments by Bill Otis, TarlsQtr and federalist. I sense all three of you have scared off a number of commentors, or maybe they just have better places to hang out.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 29, 2024 5:15:21 PM
Doug --
Not sure how I could "scare off" anyone. I would think it'd be just the opposite: If a liberal commenter sees some conservative comment he thinks is full of holes, I would think the natural thing to do is explain why it's all wrong. For example, when a liberal commenter goes on about how DP backers are just the latter-day version of Madame DeFarge, I view that as a nifty opportunity to point out how all our greatest Presidents were supporters, and not infrequently users, of the DP, and to ask whether they, too, count as heirs of the execrable French Madame.
Nothing is a better find for a debater than a blockheaded opponent.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 29, 2024 5:31:02 PM
I sense that, for many, the chance to try to prove someone else wrong is just not really that enticing. I also sense that that the kind of pugilistic discourse enjoyed by some can be off-putting to others.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 29, 2024 6:14:30 PM
Doug,
Scared off? That’s cute.
The three of us absorb far more personal insults than are given by us in response.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 29, 2024 7:10:43 PM
Master Tarls: Apparently you can take it better than you can dish it out. Vice versa for others, it might seem.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 29, 2024 7:27:45 PM
Tar;sQtr, I don't know about that. If I didn't know any better, I would think I get the most negative feedback as I seem to be the token non-conservative or non-rightist who sends messages here.
Posted by: william delzell | Jan 30, 2024 9:51:02 AM
Picture Kay Ivey on death row, preparing to face the same type of execution that just occurred last week. Imagine her reason for being on death row was for HER victims of violent crime or murder such as trans-people, especially trans-children, poor people, non-white people, political non-conformists, and the like. That would give the good Alabama governor something to think about. She is only "brave" with the marginalized people who have no clout to defend themselves. She would never DARE to mess with wealthy right-wing white people!
Posted by: william delzell | Jan 30, 2024 11:53:47 AM
In response to Bill Otis's crack about defense lawyers coaching their clients, so do prosecuting attorneys coach their plaintiff clients. Coaching is perfectly legal and both sides in an adversarial judicial system such as the U.S.'s do it. So what else is new, Otis?
Posted by: william delzell | Feb 2, 2024 10:20:36 AM