Baze et al. v. Rees, Commissioner, Kentucky Department of Corrections, et al.

In case you didn't know, the above is the Supreme Court case that affirmed the constitutionality of lethal injection (it's not, according to the court, "cruel and unusual punishment"). The court was divided, 7-2. But to say that doesn't really get at the division on the issue within the court.

ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which KENNEDY and ALITO, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a concurring opinion. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS, J., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SCALIA, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, J., joined. (p. 5)

How on earth are the courts meant to interpret this? Three and one and two and one against two. Thomas writes an opinion disagreeing with the plurality's interpretation of "cruel and unusual" but agrees in judgment; Alito writes an opinion in response to Thomas; Stevens writes an opinion which, while concurring in judgment, calls into question the constitutionality of the death penalty in se; Scalia writes an opinion which rips Stevens' argument to shreds; and on and on.

I'm amazed that the MSM haven't reported this as "Supreme Confusion." Looks like a big mess to me.