justice alito: is that a yes or a no? menendez: i think that if it still had i think that would avoid the vagueness problem your honor. justice kagan: i mean, it would create other problems, wouldn't it? i mean, we be trying to do this based on 20-year-old convictions and often on questions that nobody had an incentive to argue or litigate. what is that, thus the reason we went down this road isn't? menendez: and your honor points out a very good point about why i hesitate to think that is a solution. it's an unworkable solution, but might get around the vagueness if the parties were entitled both to argue it to a jury and to relitigate the specific facts. but i don't think anyone is imagining that recidivist statute could function that way in the courts. justice alito: well, i wasn't asking about a recidivist statute. i was asking about a statute that imposed a particular penalty for possession of of a sawed-off shotgun. and it says someone convicted under a statute that has this language in possession of the sawed-off s

justice alito once said -- i asked him why he writes dissents. one is just he could have just joined the -- you know or why he writes concurrences which he could have joined the majority. and he said, it's like somebody coming to your front door and asking you to sign a petition. would you sign a petition that you don't really believe in? so i think they all feel like they have a responsibility to say their own piece about important cases. do you think that goes for the same-sex marriage case? i mean, there was the line in the ska lena dissent, a stinging line that even if he wanted to achieve that outcome he would hide his head in a paper bag before joining the airy formations of justice kennedy. >> i was going to ask a little about that. in justice kennedy's majority opinion, he talks about -- he ex stoles the institution of marriage. he says it's a unique full illment to those who find meaning in the secular realm and is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations. and yet justice kagan who has never been married i wonder if she think

and then why i endd with alito. i think the weight of the beast has to acknowledge what the majority is doing. in this case he said something quite succinct that moved off of description of the crimes for which these oklahoma inmates have been put on death row for. but as this illustrates there's no perfect ideal way to do it. things are going to be slightly different. and most of us are in pretty much the same place. when i look at my story in the morning and david's story and bob's story for most stories, they look alarmingly similar. they often have a very similar lead, similar first quote. newspaper work is in a way a fairly narrow craft. >> wouldn't you be concerned if we actually differed on the outcome who won and who lost? >> the thing is they're both wrong. because what you really found from that is there are seven justices who didn't question the constitutionality of the death penalty. what i thought was stirring in this was it was a narrow but i think the end of my lead was unequivocal directive that stat

justice alito worries that the traditional marriage will be to use his words, vilified. justice thomas correctly points out that the government doesn't confer dignity. i think the government does not do a very good job of conferring vilification. here's the third reason why i think kennedy went with fundamental rights rather than a quote, unquote equal protection clause analysis. that is that that might have brought sexual orientation out of the closet as a quasi or suspect classification, either implication -- explicitly or by implication. kennedy wants to keep the court's options open to respect religious and traditional marriage libertarian rights to exclude or discriminate because remember, justice kennedy was the fifth vote in both the hobby lobby case last term and years ago in the dale and boy scouts case. justice kennedy is loathe options. notice i didn't say beginsbergthat ginsburg was from there. you go with the bride that brought you. there are some advantages highlighted by the near hysterical dissenting opinions in this case. so, for example, substantive due

. >> here is what skrus 'tis alito said in his dissent. i assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the reskess of their homes but if they repeat those views in public they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments employers and schools. >> jon: right, oh you mean that like it's a bad thing. (laughter) >> jon: i would still like to be able to call lady sugar-- hey slow down there uncle creepy that's your cardiologist you know why can't we just continue disliking and shunning the people we've always disliked and shunned. everybody was always okay with it but them. the your problem isn't judicial activist or overreach or politically correct policing. your problem here is bald-faced out in the open common sense experience. that's why you're not going to win the marriage equality fight, this. >> let's talk about same-sex marriage. >> i'm traditional maerj. >> but what do you say to a lesbian who is married or a gay man who is married who says donald trump what is traditional

justice alito made clear flt therefore they were acting as an etor. if an editor is sense rg it could have serious ram ifications in these other contexts. i think the law frankly has been a bit all over the place to begin with. i think it will be used by those who don't really like the notion that people can complain about viewpoint discrimination invoking their principals they'll use this case to uphold those kinds of restrictions. there was a recent case out of new york that essentially did the same thing. the tricky part about viewpoint discrimination that gets people upset is obviously if the viewpoint discrimination is both -- vote for republicans but say you can't vote for democrats that's not a problem. where people get wrapped around a bit is say gee don't do drugs would it be viewpoint discrimination to ban thing that is advocate the use of drugs outside of colorado that would probably not be viewed as strong bubba policy so people get worried about the implications from that perspective. >> i think the trademark context -- it's hard to tell

justice alito: i do want to take up your rebuttal time for just as quick question. if congress and signed a committee or a person to go through the criminal code of a versatile jurisdiction and if i those the defenses that did not fall with any other provision of the a cca, but met in the judgment of that individual or those individuals the residual clause standard, how many do you think they would come up with the? dozens, hundreds, thousands? menendez: again, it depends on whether congress was this to be narrowly applied enhancement to the worst of the worst or a broadly applied three strikes rule. and i think if they give the commission that can instructed by this court's previous cases that show the hard areas of questions, the commission could decide. i do not think that is necessary to look at every states code. if they justice fund definitions like they did for burglary and robbery in the original 1984 enactment, that with a and enormous amount of western and it would preclude them from having to look at each states code. and with the court's permission, i'll

you find justices kalina -- scalia and alito sniping at each other. he wants a the name of. you see justices kennedy and thomas in the solitary confinement is going out of. 10 years ago justice it's -- justice thomas doesn't write that concurrence, he just let that sit. you see them going at it in king the burwell. i don't know whether the court is moving to the left or right tom's numbers are better on that than i have. but the conservative wing of the court certainly does not seem to be getting along very well right now. mr. goldstein: two minutes. because our good friends at c-span are here, we have to be faithful to our time. it is exactly 2:00, so we've done that. join me in thanking acs and our panelists. [applause] >> today on c-span "washington journal," is next live. some of this year's college commencements, including speeches by george w. bush condoleezza rice, and senator elizabeth warned. later, live coverage of residential candidate rick perry as he presents his economic platform. in about 45 minutes, lambda legal talk about the aftermath of the supreme court's

conservative justice ginsberg most are happy to answer the question to ignore the case but justice alitokes to write the brief and he did a very good job with this issue how will it was preserved so it will be interesting to see what happened misheard. >> but mcfadyen was the case to send us signal to be a serious enough crime. so with the first amendment case and to have a rule whether they cannot personally solicit campaign contributions to find the committee who are the solicitors in to be the treasurer of his or her community to write thank-you notes to contributors. and florida took this rule not just to ban with similar solicitation for those that ask for contributions and then for posting the letter as it was up personal solicitation. so based on and the jurisprudence which i'm sure people are familiar with whether the ban on speech was constitutional. and a tough opinion to say this is a limitation on speech and it is content based if you're asking for money but it satisfies strict scrutiny and i think most impartial observers who have read the opinion concluded this was of varia

you asked, art, why i ended alito. i think the weight of the piece does have to acknowledge what the majority is doing. alito, not always quotable but in this case, he said something quite succinct that moved off of a description of the crimes for which these three oklahoma inmates have been put on death row for. that was my thinking. as this illustrates, there is no perfect, ideal way to do it. things are going to be slightly different. most of us are in the same place. when i look at my story david's story, my story, they look alarmingly similar. you might think we colluded. they often have a very similar lead, a similar first quote. newspaper work is, in a way a fairly narrow kraft. >> wouldn't you concerned, though if we actually differed on the outcome, who won and who lost? >> the thing is, they are both wrong. >> what you really found from that that there are seven justices who didn't question the constitutionality of the death penalty. what i thought was stirring was that it was a narrow but i thought the end o

justice alito in particular worries it is vilified. i don't think it is so much because it just is kennedy's region. justice thomas points out that the government does not do a very good job. here's the third reason why i think kennedy but with fundamental rights rather than a straight equal protection clause analysis. they might have brought sexual orientation out as a cause i classification. either explicitly or by implication. kennedy wants to keep the court option though. to respect religious and traditional marriage libertarian right to exclude or discriminate. remember just as kennedy was the fifth vote in the hobby lobby case last term and years ago in the boy scout case. justice kennedy has closed all those options. notice i didn't say mr. ginsburg is coming from. justice kennedy will deliver the fifth vote and go with the bride who brought you. some disadvantages highlighted by the amendments in this case. for example, a process which much of this sounds like it's much more controversial because unlike the equal protection cla

you asked, art, why i ended alito. i think the weight of the piece does have to acknowledge what the majority is doing. alito, not always quotable but in this case, he said something quite succinct that moved off of a description of the crimes for

i want to read part of what justice alito wrote.his decision will be used to vilify americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodox. i assume those who cling to old beliefs will have thoughts in their homes but if they repeat views in public they'll be labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers and schools. evan, did he overstate it? >> yes, he did. mr. shackelford i agree with when he talked about the fact that the constitution does protect freedom of speech including for those that disagree with treating gay people equally and the freedom to marry the court has respected. we all believe in religious freedom. we all believe in free speech or at least we should and the constitution certainly protects it. there is no conflict here. people have the absolute right to preach and to think and to say whatever they believe and at the same time those beliefs can't be used as basis for denying other people their equal rights and their equal freedom. >> we're seeing these two interests on a chicago course this w

have said that you are not a fan of what the chief justice has done but you would have appointed sam alito but when you have those opportunities in new jersey to make the new jersey supreme court your critics say you contained and reappointed the chief justice who is very liberal. they point to that as taking on the democrats and you lost on the issue and question what you would be trustworthy when appointing a united states supreme court justice? >> those folks have not watched closely. what i got in remember, remember, i have a democratic senator, so they have refused to nominate four of my folks so what i did was i got three conservative republicans in exchange for one democrat. that is a pretty good deal. it is a deal i made so i could get three conservative republicans on the court. you mention the pension ruling? those three republicans were in the survive-person majority that upheld our pension and benefit reforms and said in their decision the judiciary has no business meddling in the business of the executive and legislature branches. if we had those justices and more of them we w

>> well, justice alito the purpose of the court is to decide whether a method of execution or the way the state is going to carry out an execution is in fact constitutional and whether we're going to tolerate is it objectively intolerable to allow the states to carry out a method in this way. and so -- >> i guess i would be more inclined to find that it was intolerable if there was even some doubt about this drug. when there was a perfectly safe other drug available. but the states have gone through two different drugs and those drugs have been rendered unavailable by the abolitionists movement putting pressure on the companies that manufacture them. so that the states cannot obtain those two other drugs. and now you want to come before the court and say, well this third drug is not 100% sure. the reason it isn't 100% sure is because the abolitionists have rendered it impossible to get the 100% sure drugs and you think we should not view that azarel vant to the decision that you're putting before us? >> justice salia i don't think it's relevant to the decision to what's available. wha

led by justice samuel alito signaled they see such forced fees as unconstitutional because they require employees to support a cause that they may otherwise oppose. and the outcome could have a significant political impact because let's not forget unions have been very reliable supporters and fund-raisers for the democratic party. we're going to take up the case with the best attorneys in the business, joanna and wendy patrick are coming up later in this hour. stay tuned for that. >>> we are learning more about the convicted killer david sweat and richard matt who eluded authorities. sweat and matt conducted a full practice run on the night before they disappeared. they actually popped the manhole cover and looked out. sweat is also talking and reportedly told police he and matt listened to news reports about the upstate new york manhunt on a transistor radio. the fbi is investigating whether the escapees were part of a possible heroin ring in the maximum-security prison they escaped from. three members of the clinton correctional facility executive team and nine staff employees have be

with justice samuel alito saying those against it risk being labelled as big got and treated as such by governments, employers and schools. adding "the court's ruling will be used to vilify americans who are unwilling to ascent to the new orthodoxy". >> when those of us warning the rest of the american people pay attention to the sacrificing of first amendment freedoms this isn't "chicken little." we have very good reason to be concerned about this. >> reporter: one "new york times" columnist says it's time to abolish or greatly diminish tax-exempt status for religious groups that quote dissent from friday's decision. the aclu has announced it will end its decades-long defense of the religious freedom restoration act saying quote religious liberty doesn't mean the right to discriminate. >> thissies we founded the united states of america. people got on boats and came here because they wanted the right to disagree with the government in connection with their religious beliefs. >> reporter: though many of the left say those talk about religious liberty issues are simply scare monkscare

justice alito -- i asked him why he writes the sense when he could've just -- or why he writes concurrences when he could join the majority and he said, it is like summit coming to your front door and asking you to sign a petition. would you sign a petition you don't believe in? they all have a responsibility to say their own piece. >> you think that goes for the same-sex marriage case? there was a line in the scalia dissent that even if he wanted to achieve that outcome he would hide his head in a paperback before joining the airy formulations of justice kennedy. >> i was going to answer about that. in justice kennedy's majority opinion, he extols the institution of marriage. he says it is a unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm and is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations. yet justice kagan who has never been married a sign that opinion. i wonder if she thinks it is essential for her. justice sotomayor who was married a few years in her 20's sign that opinion. but i thought was most interesting about the footnote was what scalia said, even for a

confirmation but every eight years the people would have an up or down vote -- >> what if they bounced out alitoresident obama in the white house? >> well i can tell you that 20 states put in place judicial retention elections. and they have worked. the people have used them sparingly, but the alternative, who in their right mind would design a system where every major public policy decision of the day is decided not by the people not by the constitution not by elected representatives, but by nine elite lawyers in washington, d.c. as justice scalia learned, all nine of them they either graduated from harvard or yale, eight or nine of them from the east coast or west coast. and as you know i graduated from harvard, my dad referred to it as my time as missionary work -- >> you worked for a justice respected when you clerked on the supreme court. i want to ask you about this one of the stories i thought was so great about your book was about justice thomas. when you clerked for the supreme court, you're a young guy, you go up there. clerking for the chief justice. but justice thomas agreed to see a

and justice alito who i view as being -- he is the conservative justice ginsburg -- and most of them are happy to answer the question in front of them and ignore the case from then on and justice ginsburg likes to say congress ought to overrule this and justice brief likes to write the brief on remand on how this issue wasn't preserved and it wasn't harmless error and all of that stuff. so it is interesting to see what happens on remand. >> thank you. i do think that the alone is case and mcfadden was the drug analog case that the court was sending an -- a signal that intent really does matter and congratulations on that win. andy you argued a very important first amendment case involving judicial elections. that was the williams lee case. can you talk a little bit about that? >> sure. many cases and florida is one, that elect their judges have a rule that says that candidates whether they are in couple bents or not -- incumbents can't personally solicit campaign contributions they have to find a committee of people who are the solicitors and they can solicit. however, in florida the

the rhetoric that the rhetoric was particularly strong on the part of justices scalia, thomas and alito it was directed at majority opinions for example in the same-sex marriage case, in the obamacare case that were written by conservatives. it's one thing if you're justice scalia and you think justice ginsburg has written an opinion with no document we expect that but another thing with justice kennedy and the chief just dischanging sides in a case he regards as fundamentally important. >> brown: what about marcia looking ahead to the big cases there's always big ones but big ones that could shift our perception again. >> there are. already the court has on the doctor the next term a major case involving unions and agency shop fees that nonunion members pay in order for the union to represent them during collective bargaining. there is september meant on the court to find they're unconstitutional under the first amendment. the court also has, once again taken affirmative action in higher education,. >> brown: which has colleges worried. >> absolutely, and the second time for this parti

they acted like they had five justice thomas is on the court or maybe five justice alitos.t happened is, robert and kennedy said wait a second, that is too far. amy: just interviewed a couple who were plaintiffs in the same-sex marriage case and they are naming their daughter "kennedy." i want to go to the issue of the death penalty, which was so critical this week, the supreme court rejecting the challenge to the use of a controversial sedative in executions. three oklahoma prisoners had sought a ban on the says it -- sedative which has been tied to , several botched or prolonged lethal injections. a five to four majority rejected the inmates' claim that the drug violates a ban on cruel and unusual punishment. last april, oklahoma prisoner clayton lockett died of a massive heart attack when his lethal injection with an untested cocktail of lethal drugs was botched. after struggling violently on the gurney, doctors halted the killing 13 minutes in when discovering lockett was still conscious and trying to speak. about 30 minutes later, lockett died of a heart attack when th

chief justice robert and justice alito, and a big part of obama's legacy will be his appointment of nominees. the two bush nominees -- the two obama nominees. host: let's hear from jay in south carolina. caller: i was at a party the other night, and people were talking about inauguration addresses. they talked about jfk, and then someone mentioned gerald ford. it is a pretty awesome inauguration address. i was wondering how that came about? guest: that is a great question. the president used to laugh about it. you have to remember, this was a unique inauguration. because of the unique circumstances surrounding the transition from nixon to ford, he couldn't prepare an inaugural address. so this was something that was put together at the very last minute. he looked at it the day before he delivered it. and there was a line that he thought was over the top. he thought it was harsh. it is the line that we all remember, "our long national nightmare is over." and -- went to the mat and said that it was the phrase that people would remember. he was right. he was the first to acknowledge in later ye

you probably remember that exchange between justice alito and the solicitor general to say it does that create a risk their religious organizations with the traditional view of marriage and have tax exemption remote? to try teetwo dismissed the question to be frank and honest i cannot deny that will be an issue. yes it will be an issue. and it is going to me i suspect and the fact the obama administration has not done anything to suggest there may be people within the obama administration is that our planning to issue a decision that would deny tax exemptions for religious institutions to which your to that understanding of marriage. my first six examples in the area of institutional religious freedom with the ability of institutions to carry out their self to find religious mission. others are in the individual freedoms so the other is the issue that justice scalia of raise that the church authority to have marriages performed by pastors recognized by civil government within the minister approve various people in the united states it is recognized not only for religious purposes but le

justices ginsburg, breyer sotomayor and dissent was written by justice roberts justice thomas and justice alito. there was one majority opinion and four defense -- dissents. i will talk about the opinion in two ways. i will talk about the legal reasoning that justice kennedy used and the social and moral message that was conveyed by the court -- court's opinion by not only the result but also the legal reasoning that justice kennedy used. for those who have read the decision already i hope that this talk will provide you with additional insight. for those of you who have not read the opinion, i hope that this lecture will serve the same purpose as a book review often serves very at how many times -- serves. how many times have you heard -- i have not read the book but i have read the review? if you don't read the opinion hopefully this will serve as the book review. one way, perhaps the best way to understand the legal reasoning that the court used in the social message that it sent, is to compare the court's decision last friday in june 2015, that states may not deny same-sex couples access to

taken and defense were written by chief justice roberts, as well as by justice scalia, thomas and alito. there were no concurrences in the majority opinion. there was one majority opinion and then for thank you. i'm going to talk about the opinion in two ways. i'm going to talk about the legal reasoning -- dissents -- and going to talk about the social and moral message that was conveyed by the court's opinion by not only the result but also the legal reasoning that justice kennedy used. by those who have read the decision already, i hope that this talk will provide you with the additional insight. for those of you who have not read the opinion, i hope this lecture, this talk will serve the same purpose as a book review often serves. how much times have your i haven't read the book but i've read the book review. even if you don't read the opinion, hopefully this talk will serve as the book review. so i think one way and perhaps the best way to understand both the legal reasoning that the court used and social message it sent is to compare the court decision last friday, in june 2015, th

and the chief justice and justice scalia and alito in dissent. just to give a little bit of background because people are less familiar in this law than same-sex marriage, the framework familiar with the law than same-sex marriage. this was set by justice jackson from the 50s and he said there are three ways this could arise. when the president and congress on the same -- want the same thing, the president's power is strongest. when the president is acting alone but congress hasn't done anything, the president has some authority. it is a murky middle. when the president is acting contrary to a congressional enactment then it is the hardest time for the president's power to be upheld and oefb if the -- only if the power is exclusive and conclusive, are the words in the constitution, will the president prevail over a contrary direction of congress. and it was thought in the third category the president would lose if it went to litigation, but some of this llc and learn and history had the president facing down congress successfully in the political

you find justice alito and scalia. he won't say his name. he's writing the opinion. you see the consignment case going at it. years ago he just lets it sit. you see the chief justice and scalia going at it in king v. burwell. i don't know if they are moving to the left or the right. tom's numbers are much better than i am. the conservative wing of the court certainly does not seem to be getting along very well now. >> our good friends at c-span are here we really have to be faithful to our time. it is exactly 2:00. so we have done that. please join me in thanking acs and our panelists. [ applause ]. >>> coming up tonight on c-span3, a senate hearing on technology to improve transportation safety. then a discussion on the new overtime rules proposed by the white house. that's followed by a conversation with the heads of online service provider start-ups. later, a look at the u.s. innovation system and the economy. tuesday, a senate commerce science and transportation subcommittee examine new technology toss improve the safety and efficiency of the nation's transportat

now, this doesn't satisfy the dissenters, justice alito in particular, worry they will be villified. i don't think it's so much because of justice kennedy's reason. justice thomas correctly points out that the government doesn't confer dignity. i think the government does not do a very good job of confering villification. there's a third i think i think he went with fundamental rights. equal protection clause analysis might have brought sexual orientation out of the closet as a quasi or suspect classification. either explicitly or by implication. and kennedy i think wants to keep the court's options open to respect religious and traditional marriage libertarian rights to exclude or to discriminate. remember justice kennedy was the fifth vote in lobby lobby and years ago in the boy scouts case and justice kennedy i think is loathe to close options. this is an implicit deal if justice kennedy is going to deliver the fifth vote then you sort of go with the bride who brought you. there are some disadvantages highlighted by the near histterkle dissenting opinions in this case. so for exam

chief justice robert and justice alito, and a big part of obama's legacy will be his appointment of nomineeso bush nominees -- the two obama nominees. host: let's hear from jay in south carolina. caller: i was at a party the other night, and people were talking about inauguration addresses. they talked about jfk, and then someone mentioned gerald ford. it is a pretty awesome inauguration address. i was wondering how that came about? guest: that is a great question. the president used to laugh about it. you have to remember, this was a unique inauguration. because of the unique circumstances surrounding the transition from nixon to ford, he couldn't prepare an inaugural address. so this was something that was put together at the very last minute. he looked at it the day before he delivered it. and there was a line that he thought was over the top. he thought it was harsh. it is the line that we all remember, "our long national nightmare is over." and -- went to the mat and said that it was the phrase that people would remember. he was right. he was the first to acknowledge in later years that

for example, there was we saw from these forms that justice alito had recused himself in a case lastinvolving coca-cola. and we could see that he had stock and he actually sold them and then he got back into the case. host: let's go to bonnie. caller: thank you for it seems to be very unbiased answers and that's refreshing. i have no faith in either party at this particular time. i vote both republican and democrat. i voted for obama in 2008 not in 2012. he's lied. but getting to the supreme court ruling i feel that if the state votes on it and the people don't think that's the way it should stay, i believe in states rights and i believe that the system being manipulated to change state courts to get what the government wants or what the party wants at the time is wrong. i do believe that the justices that performed the gay marriages -- i don't care who sleeps with who not my concern, not an issue. i do believe that the definition of marriage is not sexual. and i don't care one way or another whether gay rights were approved or not doesn't matter to me and i don't care one way or ano

. >> host: miss alito. >> guest: businesses i work with pay decent wages in my opinion. this rule will not force employers to pay overtime if they can't pay $50,000. that is just incorrect there. as i said earlier what is it going to do businesses particularly small businesses are going to have to reexamine their business model there. they can not afford overtime. so in a lot of businesses overtime is already limited, limited there or prohibited there in many instances with small businesses. and larger businesses too. and think you're going to see more of that too. you're not going to see businesses hiring additional workers. you will see small businesses business owner will take over the duties there. they're just going to assume them. because they can't afford to hire additional workers. can't afford to pay overtime, time 1/2. they can't in all instances afford to pay $50,000. >> host: the obama administration estimating these new rules if they go into effect would impact five million workers around the country. we're talking about these rules this morning on the "wash

second sentence which was also the second paragraph but ended your story with a quote from justice alito in the majority. and the other two david ended with more from the dissent and, bob, your story ended with several instances of botched executions. which which, one might say leaned more towards the dissenters than the majority. why did you make those? >> go ahead first. that's one of those cases where there's clearly several different ways to write the story. there's a 5-4 vote. oklahoma wins. the lethal injections can go forward. justice brier reads and delivers a very long dissent saying for him for the first time joining ruth ginsburg basically saying that the death penalty is unconstitutional. and i thought it was a really interesting formulation which was that he said what wheelchair learned over the last 20 years is there are a lot of people on death row who are incident, who were wrongly convicted. and it takes 20 or 30 years on average before anybody is executed. so he said, we could speed up the process, but then increase the likelihood that we're executing an innocent person