As reported by The Hill, the South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that executions by firing squad, along with other controversial methods, are legal if requested by the inmate.
On Wednesday, the South Carolina Supreme Court delivered its verdict, stating that death by firing squad and other methods of execution considered cruel and unusual are permissible when chosen by the inmate. The 2021 legislation was a response to ongoing difficulties in obtaining lethal injection drugs, which had led to botched executions.
The law passed in 2021 allows executions by firing squad and electrocution, alongside lethal injection. South Carolina faced a significant hurdle in carrying out executions due to a lack of reliable sources for lethal injection drugs. This shortage had rendered electrocution the default execution method.
Following the passage of this law, death row inmates challenged its legality. However, the state Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, ultimately sided with state prosecutors. This ruling clears the way for the resumption of executions in South Carolina, which have been on hold since 2011.
Currently, there are 32 inmates on death row in South Carolina. The decision marks a significant development in the state's approach to capital punishment.
Justice John Few, writing for the majority, explained that the 2021 law was designed to make the death penalty less inhumane while allowing the state to enforce its laws. Few acknowledged the risk of executions being botched but argued that this risk does not render the method constitutionally cruel.
"The inescapable reality that an execution by any method may not go as planned — that it will be 'botched' — does not render the method 'cruel' under the constitution," Few stated. He emphasized that the law was a "sincere effort to make the death penalty less inhumane."
South Carolina now joins a handful of states that allow executions by firing squad. Only five states in the U.S. permit this method, and it has been used only three times since 1976, all in Utah.
Governor Henry McMaster praised the court's decision, stating, "The Supreme Court has rightfully upheld the rule of law. This decision is another step in ensuring that lawful sentences can be duly enforced and the families and loved ones of the victims receive the closure and justice they have long awaited."
The ruling has significant implications for the future of capital punishment in South Carolina. Electrocution, now the main method of execution in the state, is also legal in seven other states. This decision may influence other states facing similar challenges with lethal injection drugs.
The controversy surrounding the use of firing squads and electrocution highlights the ongoing debate over the most humane and effective methods of execution. As South Carolina prepares to resume executions, the ruling is expected to face further scrutiny and potential legal challenges.
With the Supreme Court's ruling, South Carolina is set to resume executions after a 13-year hiatus. The decision comes as the state grapples with the complexities of carrying out capital punishment amid logistical and ethical concerns.
In summary, the South Carolina Supreme Court's ruling allows executions by firing squad and other methods deemed cruel and unusual if requested by the inmate. This decision follows a 2021 law passed due to a shortage of lethal injection drugs and execution mishaps. Justice John Few emphasized that the law aims to make the death penalty less inhumane despite the potential risks of botched executions. Governor Henry McMaster praised the ruling, which is set to resume executions in the state.
A recently leaked memo suggests a severe decline in President Joe Biden's political standing following his recent debate performance.
A substantial number of his past supporters are now urging the current White House occupant to end his campaign, while former President Donald Trump continues to gain ground in key areas, as The Blaze reports.
The memo, shared by Puck on Tuesday from left-leaning research group Open Labs, shows a significant drop in Biden's favorability and vote share. It reveals that 40% of those who backed Biden in 2020 believe he should withdraw from the race, contrasted with the 45% who think he should continue.
Two months earlier, only 25% of Biden supporters felt he should step aside, with 62% preferring he remain in the race. The swing in opinion is significant and suggests growing concern among his base.
Additionally, swing voters express a two-to-one margin favoring Biden's withdrawal. The research from Open Labs highlights the largest weekly drop in Biden's vote share since late 2021.
Biden's standing was already four percentage points lower than his 2020 results, indicating a troubling trend for his campaign.
A main factor in Biden's downturn appears to be escalating worries about his age. About 69% of voters now express concern, up by 8% since before the debate.
This includes 45% of those who backed Biden in 2020, 68% of swing voters, and 92% of Trump voters from the last election. The memo indicates these age-related anxieties are a considerable factor in his declining favorability.
Open Labs' document notes that Trump's competitiveness has expanded to states previously not seen as battlegrounds.
In swing states, Biden's margin has dropped by around 2%, with Trump leading significantly in places like Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and other key states.
Even in states such as New Mexico and Virginia, Trump has gained a slight lead. The narrowing leads in Colorado and Maine further highlight Biden's vulnerabilities.
The share of voters seeing Biden "more favorably" has now reached an all-time low of 27%, according to Open Labs' ongoing tracking. This drop in favorability is notable, with similar decreases observed during past crises like the Afghanistan withdrawal and the classified documents case.
Some sources online have suggested that the memo could be a tactic to create a false sense of security among Republicans, potentially leading to voter complacency. However, if Biden continues his campaign against growing internal advice, the consequence could be a profound defeat. His path to re-election appears increasingly fraught with challenges.
A recent ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court is poised to significantly impact voting methods in the state.
The court's liberal majority has reinstated the use of ballot drop boxes, reversing a decision from two years ago as the state gears up for an election, as the New York Times reports.
This decision overturns a previous ruling by the former conservative majority, which had restricted their use.
With a presidential election just four months away, this move will impact how ballots are submitted and counted in Wisconsin. The state, often a focal point in national elections due to its sharp political divisions, could play a crucial role in determining the outcome of the Electoral College.
The ruling has drawn sharp criticism from Republicans, who argue that it reveals partisan motives within the court. This is reflective of prior Democratic grievances when the court had a conservative majority.
Ballot drop boxes serve as an alternate method for voters to cast their ballots before Election Day. They gained prominence during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, which saw an increase in early voting by mail and in person. Following the 2020 election, Republicans initiated legal actions that significantly curtailed the use of drop boxes. The argument was centered on claims of potential fraud and concerns over the security of the drop boxes.
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, writing for the majority, emphasized that the ruling permits municipal clerks to use drop boxes at their discretion. "Our decision today does not force or require that any municipal clerks use drop boxes. It merely acknowledges what Wisconsin law has always meant: that clerks may lawfully utilize secure drop boxes in an exercise of their statutorily conferred discretion," she wrote.
On the other hand, Justice Rebecca Bradley dissented, accusing the majority of abandoning legal principles to pursue a political agenda. "The majority again forsakes the rule of law in an attempt to advance its political agenda," she stated.
The decision is another step in an ongoing battle over voting regulations and practices in Wisconsin. It illustrates the broader national conflict over how elections should be conducted.
Democrats and progressive groups in Wisconsin have been pushing for reforms to address Republican gerrymandering and other contentious issues. Following the shift to a liberal majority last year, the court took steps to redraw legislative district boundaries, aiming to correct perceived imbalances.
In addition, the court is set to hear another significant case that will decide if the State Constitution encompasses the right to abortion. This decision could have profound implications for women's rights and reproductive healthcare in Wisconsin.
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley's majority opinion affirms the lawful use of drop boxes, effectively reverting to practices in place before the 2020 ban. The court's decision underscores the ongoing clashes over voting methods and election integrity in Wisconsin.
As the next election approaches, the reinstatement of drop boxes may influence voter turnout and accessibility. With Wisconsin's status as a known battleground state, the ruling could have significant repercussions in the broader context of national election.