02538nam 22005174a 450 991081404490332120230721010216.01-59332-545-2(CKB)2550000000035446(EBL)837739(OCoLC)732955775(SSID)ssj0000553358(PQKBManifestationID)11388472(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000553358(PQKBWorkID)10504916(PQKB)10001941(Au-PeEL)EBL837739(CaPaEBR)ebr10430460(MiAaPQ)EBC837739(EXLCZ)99255000000003544620090108d2009 uy 0engurcn|||||||||txtccrDeath justice[electronic resource] Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and the contradictions of the death penalty /Kenneth W. Miller and David NivenEl Paso LFB Scholarly Pub.20091 online resource (246 p.)Description based upon print version of record.1-59332-340-9 Includes bibliographical references (p. 219-232) and index.Consistency is the very foundation of the rule of law -- The death penalty in american law and politics -- Speaking for the public in death penalty decisions -- Defending the states in death penalty decisions -- The wisdom of jurors in death penalty decisions -- The legal and political implications -- The culture battle -- Death penalty policy: breaking the mold.Justice Scalia has warned of the danger of fallacies that pass for truth simply because they are frequently repeated. Death Justice argues that one fallacy that passes for truth is the widely held notion that Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas applied a fixed standard--itself based on a fixed meaning of the Constitution--to death penalty cases. In defiance of their judicial rhetoric, their conclusions simply defy their, or any, conception of consistency. And without a logical, consistent foundation, their findings on the death penalty come to resemble little more than personal politicalCapital punishmentUnited StatesCapital punishment345.73/0773Miller Kenneth W(Kenneth Wayne)8396Niven David1971-1654091MiAaPQMiAaPQMiAaPQBOOK9910814044903321Death justice4106945UNINA