As can be seen from a recent en banc denial of a stay of execution, the Obama Administration populated the 11th Circuit with judges with a propensity for lawlessness--lest we have forgotten, five judges voted to stay an execution on the basis that the maker of drugs shown by testing to be pure should be disclosed. Of course, if the drugs are pure, then it matters not who made them. Obviously, if those judges were willing to bend the law for the benefit of a capital murderer, it stands to reason that they would do so in other cases.

Dilution is the solution to the Obama judicial pollution.

Yes, this is harsh, in your face type criticism--but given that these five judges voted in a lawless manner knowing that such lawlessness would (a) harm the victim's family (imagine being the victim's family and hearing that a stay of execution was granted--after you had made arrangements to travel to the prison etc. on a basis which any ordinary person would recognize as ridiculous) and (b) be antithetical to all precepts of "our Federalism", what other type of criticism is appropriate.

Those judges have earned the calumny of all who believe in the rule of law.