NAME: Bobby James Moore v. Texas
AUTHOR: Per Curiam
JOINING: Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh
JOINING: Thomas, Gorsuch
Case CommentaryI will assume (if incorrectly) that Kavanaugh played a role in this decision. And that whoever's place he took was the original author of this Per Curiam Opinion.
I do not care about preventing the execution of idiots. I do not care if morons are killed after being sentenced to death. I mean, if you are willing to kill a person with normal intelligence, I don't see how killing a person with low intelligence is somehow crossing the line.
And as such, this decision matters not one iota to me. And in my (it truly is hard to keep on saying humble) opinion, this case (from beginning to end) is wholly unworthy of The Court's time.
Interestingly (as in, you may find this next bit interesting), I would not be surprised to learn (though, how one learns this is beyond me) that the State of Texas' intent is to overload the system.
Basically, I do not know what happens if a lower court systemically ignores a Supreme Court ruling. I don't think The Supreme Court has the time to enforce its decisions.
Anyway, in my opinion (based on a previous abortion case, wherein I read between the lines, so we are talking wild conjecture, here), I would not be surprised if the Texas Court of Appeals hadn't decided to fry them all, knowing that The Supreme Court could not keep up.
I am, of course, being simplistic.
But I am, also, being serious.
It is my understanding that Juries are triers of fact, while Judges are triers of law. In this case, The Supreme Court weighed in on who gets to decide Medical Facts. And they decided Medical Practitioners (i.e. Doctors) should get to decide Medical Issues and not lay people, judges, or anyone else.
Um, I am in favour of The People (and fairly Anti the Medical Establishment). So, that notion does not sit well with me.
Also, Mental Retardation is every bit a Social Concept as it is a Medical one. But not seeing how I could prove the point, I will move on.
In my ever so humble opinion, Roberts' Opinion is utterly worthless. But then, I'll still capitalize his Opinion and not mine, so there you have it. The extent of my respect for Roberts' Opinion.
I agree with the Dissent: first, because they are dissenting (and I do not agree with The Court); and second, because they believe The Court should limit its actions to matters of law, not fact.
Along with this notion (and stare decisis), I've, also, noted that the losing side likes to complain about how The Court is (currently) deciding something that was neither briefed nor something they deem worthy of certiorari, in the first place.
Sucks to be on the losing side.
Welcome to my world.