Anti-death penalty zealot Linda Greenhouse has a piece
up in the NYT gushing over the Connecticut Supreme Court's 4-3 decision retrospectively abolishing the death penalty, even though the state legislature -- a very liberal legislature -- abolished it only prospectively, and even though that distinction was crucial to getting an abolition bill passed at all
, as Kent has noted
. The gist of Ms. Greenhouse's article is that the death penalty is on the way out the door, and sooner or later, the fabled "national conversation" about its defects will take us to the Higher Ground that Ms. Greenhouse and her Manhattan pals occupy.
There is much to say about the Greenhouse work, but for now I want to mention only two things to point out how slanted, if not simply dishonest, it is.
First, the big opportunity for a major strike against the death penalty came, not in Connecticut, but, less than eight weeks ago, in the United States Supreme Court's Glossip case. Abolitionists were giddy with anticipation. Liberal blogs were all over themselves anticipating a "big decision."
Didn't happen. The opposite happened. A SCOTUS majority, with Justice Kennedy on board with every word, declared
that "it is settled that capital punishment is constitutional."
But that Glossip was ever decided cannot be found in the Greenhouse piece until nicely down the page, in its tenth paragraph, and the word "Glossip" does not appear until after that. This is in an article about the future of the American death penalty, mind you.