Alito more about alotta nothing

A couple good questions about Alito, and I will try to take them in turn. As a preface, I should point out that agreeing with a position and ruling on it are not the same thing. I have, ironically, learned this from making rulings in a card game based on, of all things, professional wrestling. More than occasionally, the "law" (official rulings from the people who created the games) conflict with the card text. My inclination is to rule per the card text, but the law requires I rule as per the "law of the land", or the official rules. The more you think about it, the more that will directly apply. More on that soon.
The first question had to do with why I would regard Alito as independent in this case. It is my belief that Alito, considered to be a die-hard "conservative", whatever that means, is expected to be pro-death penalty and, in general, rule in ways that make it easier to apply and execute death warrants. Indeed, to back up this expectation, the referenced article mentioned he "split with the most conservative members of the court"...in other words, interested observers expected him to vote a certain way based on his assumed ideological underpinnings.
That would have been the easy and, indeed, expected way for him to rule. He threw people for a lopp by instead siding with those who question either the death penalty or certain aspects of it. This independance has nothing to do with his views on abortion, presidential power, or congressional power but instead looked at the validity of a legal question.
For me, and this is strictly a personal opinion based on exactly one example, and therefore subject to change, this shows he is willing to set aside personal beliefs in favor of looking strictly, unemotionally, and unfettered by ideology, at a LEGAL question. That is the independance. this is not to say he will not find that injection is legal, simply that he finds a legitimate legal question serious enough to stay an execution.
As for the second question...no, there is no question of the guilt, but there IS a Constitutional question. The Founding Fathers are revered for their wisdom...sometimes that reverance is misplaced or overdone. They deliberately left certain verbiage vague which requires reconsideration at various times.
Personally, I do not see much difference between being hung, shot, electrocuted or injected. However, there are elements of that discussion, including whether the death penalty has become cruel and unusual, that are subject to review. This is one area where setting precedent is different from making law.
Why would it be "cruel and unusual" now as opposed to 50 or a 100 years ago? Well, several reasons, but lets start at the top.
While I believe the oft-heard statistic about percentages of minorities in prison and on death row to be sometimes abused, one truth is all but indisputable. The people on death row, with few exceptions, have been under or misrepresented. This means they have not received their right to a fair and impartial trial. Therefore, the people who have been condemned to death are not receiving equitable sentences with many people who committed the same or similar crimes but received lesser sentences.
If you check these statistics, you will find the vast, vast majority of those who received the death sentence were represented by poorly paid public defenders while those who receive life in prison or even less generally had better paid, more capable attorneys. Thus, on equal footing, few if any of the people on death row would be there...instead, they would be in for life or perhaps even something lighter.
It is the disparity in punishment that is at issue...not the death penalty itself, but the application of it. Who is killed and why...and who isn't, and why. One way to get that question before the court is by questioning the means of death.
I think Alito will have a difficult time getting a fair look at his judging by most people simply because situations such as we encountered here will continue to arise...his views on abortion or presidential power or other important social issues will be so prevalent in the minds of most people that his view on an individual case might be discounted.
This is neither right nor wrong, it simply is. However, I would take this chance to advise myself, for I come back and read this drivel from time to time, to remember that yes, people can change and I need to approach every situation with an open mind. I might be surprised by what I find.