The Supreme Court debated the constitutionality of lethal injection today.  Justice Scalia once again awed with his hubris and manifest inhumanity, asking:

Where does that come from, that you must find the method of execution that causes the least pain? We have approved electrocution, we have approved death by firing squad. I expect both of those have more possibilities of painful death than the protocol here. Where does this come from that in the execution of a person who has been convicted of killing people we must choose the least painful method possible? Is that somewhere in our Constitution?

He made it clear he didn't want the constitutionality of the method to get in the way of executions, complaining: "[T]his never ends.... [T]here will always be some claim that there is some new method that's been devised, and once again executions are stayed throughout the country."

Meanwhile, in New Hampshire the big news was Hillary's little Mitt Romney moment.  Apparently, when talking about who does her hair, she "teared up." There is some dispute as to the exact nature of the phenomenon, though. According to some sources she didn't tear up, her eyes merely "misted."

Eye-witnesses were consulted.  The Globe's James Pindell quoted one Elizabeth Holcomb, from Exeter, who sat close to Clinton as saying: "She definitely teared up. I believe her. I believe that what she says comes from her heart."

Reporters from The Times, quoted the woman who asked about Clinton's hair: "I don’t think she could make up it up," Mrs. Pernold said. "Could you do that? I think she really cares about us."

And while debate raged in the blogosphere, The Baltimore Sun had to admit that the moment "certainly appeared unscripted."

Why is the reality of other people's pain so important to some people, and so unimportant to others, I wonder?