26 January—The United Nations Human Rights Office expressed “regret” for Kenneth Smith’s execution in Alabama last night. Surprise. Yeah, right. For the record, the United Nations International Court of Justice this morning virtually accused Israel of committing genocide for defending itself from the Arab and other Muslim enemies that surround it and have vowed to exterminate the little sanctuary state and its Jewish inhabitants.

Smith’s death gurney statement was, “Tonight Alabama causes humanity to take a step backwards.” He should have said, “A small step for Alabama, a giant leap for justice.” Anyway, his last words were, “I’m leaving with love, peace, and light.” He made the “I love you” sign (presumably in American Sign Language) to his family members who were there to see him off and thanked them for supporting him. And, of course, “Love, love all of you.” He should have thought of that when he murdered the wayward preacher’s wife for a thousand dollars in 1988.

The nation’s first execution by pure nitrogen hypoxia took about 22 minutes. Smith appeared to remain conscious for several minutes and shook and writhed on the gurney for at least two minutes, followed by several minutes of heavy breathing. The murderer for hire was pronounced dead at 8:25 p.m. “He was writhing and suffering,” according to a U.N. spokesperson who hadn’t actually seen him writhe and suffer. But we’ll take her word for it. In all events, Smith clearly deserved to writhe and suffer.

A statement from Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey said, “After more than 30 years and attempt after attempt to game the system, Mr. Smith has answered for his horrendous crimes.” Mr. Smith indeed.

The Supreme Court earlier yesterday had denied another attempt to stay Smith’s execution. No dissents had been noted in Wednesday’s denial. Thursday, however, the three liberal women justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—had their dissents noted. Justice Sotomayor observed that the manner of execution was “untested,” that Smith was a “guinea pig,” and that the whole thing ran contrary to the Eight Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Justice Sotomayor was right about nitrogen hypoxia being untested—on humans, at least, although it’s been tested on guinea pigs and other animals and found to be inhumane. But she and her liberal lady justices regularly ignore the Second Amendment’s protection against infringing on the people’s right to keep and bear arms. As well as the biblical injunction “an eye for an eye.” Is anybody surprised, then, that they want it both ways?

Sean O’Grady, writing in The Independent in London, complains that we wouldn’t treat our pets like that. And he too is right. Because our pets—and all animals—deserve better. And they don’t murder for hire . . .