Citizens Have No Right to Murder so How Can They Delegate That Power to Government? Trump’s Appointed Judges Lift Injunction & Allow Feds to Schedule Executions [murders]
Undeceiver LYSANDER SPOONER EXPLAINED, "‘it is impossible that a government should have any rights, except such as the individuals composing it had previously had, as individuals. They could not delegate to a government any rights which they did not themselves possess. They could not contribute to the government any rights, except such as they themselves possessed as individuals.”
POWER COMES FROM THE PEOPLE & OTHER LIES. From [HERE] A badly divided federal court of appeals has lifted a court order that had prevented the federal government from resuming executions after a hiatus of more than 16 years.
In a fractured ruling with three separate opinions and no rationale for its decision commanding a majority, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voted 2-1 on April 7, 2020 to vacate the preliminary injunction that had blocked the federal government from carrying out four executions in December 2019 and January 2020. The court remanded the case to the D.C. federal district court to decide a series of additional unresolved issues in the case.
The ruling came in a case in which federal death-row prisoners had filed a multi-pronged challenge to the legality and constitutionality of a new execution protocol issued by the U.S. Department of Justice in July 2019. When the protocol was released, Attorney General William Barr also announced that execution dates had been scheduled for five prisoners. One of those prisoners, who had received a stay of execution on unrelated grounds, did not join the execution challenge.
The court’s per curiam opinion stated “Each member of the panel takes a different view of what the FDPA [Federal Death Penalty Act] requires. Because two of us believe that the district court misconstrued the FDPA, we vacate the preliminary injunction.” The court’s decision divided along partisan lines. Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both appointed by President Donald Trump, voted to vacate the injunction and allow the federal government to schedule executions. Judge David Tatel, appointed by President Bill Clinton, dissented, arguing that the proposed federal protocol violates the FDPA. The panel left the district court to decide the prisoners’ challenges to the proposed execution drugs brought under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Controlled Substances Act, as well as claims related to the constitutionality of the protocol and a claim that the protocol is arbitrary and capricious under the federal Administrative Procedures Act.
In a statement, Cate Stetson, who argued the case for the prisoners in the circuit court, suggested that the prisoners would seek reconsideration by the full appeals court. “The district court’s injunction was aimed at preventing the government from ‘short-circuiting legitimate judicial process’ and serving the public interest by ‘attempting to ensure that the most serious punishment is imposed lawfully,’” she said. “Without action by the full court, the panel’s splintered decision will allow the government to execute prisoners even while serious questions remain unanswered about the legality of the government’s execution procedures under federal law. As Judge Tatel wrote in his dissenting opinion, ‘Had Congress intended to authorize the Attorney General to adopt a uniform execution protocol, it knew exactly how to do so.’”