Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing the innocent.
Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing the innocent.
Almost two decades ago, Troy Anthony Davis was convicted of murder and sentenced to die. Since then, seven of the witnesses against him have recanted their testimony, and some have even implicated Sylvester “Redd” Coles, a witness who testified that Davis was the shooter. In light of the very real evidence that Davis could be innocent of the crime that placed him on death row, the Supreme Court today invoked a rarely used procedure giving Davis an opportunity to challenge his conviction. Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, however, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized his colleagues for thinking that mere innocence is grounds to overturn a conviction:
This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.
So in Justice Scalia’s world, the law has no problem with sending an innocent man to die. One wonders why we even bother to have a Constitution.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Maybe not unconstitutional, but still reprehensible!
So that’s what a justice without empathy looks like.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:01 pmBarf.
It is no wonder they didn’t want a judge with empathy in their club.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:03 pmThis is what happens when you let dictionary definitions do your thinking for you… jeebuz.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:03 pmMere innocence?
August 17th, 2009 at 5:04 pmObviously the innocent until proven guilty thing means that once you are proven guilty, that is it.
And this idiot is on the highest court in the land?
August 17th, 2009 at 5:05 pmThat’s a pretty reactionary statement there scalia and thomas.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:06 pmInnocence is not grounds to overturn a conviction??? WTF?? Repub Scalia certainly sounds as though he’s annointing himself as King of a “death panel”. Imagine– “Sure, you’ve been proven innocent, but we’re executing you anyway!” I can’t wait to hear Palin & Grassley destroy him for his comments!
August 17th, 2009 at 5:07 pmReality has very little impact on the thinking of the average right winger, why should we be surprised that reality has no place in the mind of the right wing’s favorite jurist?
Nevertheless, Scalia (and his ever silent partner, Thomas) should be ashamed of themselves… as those of us who deal with the reality of their opinions are of them.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:09 pm“Scalia” must mean “scum” in Italian.
Antonin Scalia is the scummiest, most disgraceful man ever to sit on the High Court.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:09 pmThis is why lifetime appointment of judges to SCOTUS without retirement definition is dangerous. If a Supreme Court Justice can make this sort of statement, they should be removed from the bench. Innocence is always a reason.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:09 pmI recommend he be the first “volunteer” to prove his point.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:11 pmGod I look forward to the day when Scalia and Thomas are GONE. Tow more evil persons have ever walked this earth and to think that they have been on the Supreme Court for decades says very bad things about this country.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:12 pmactually?
August 17th, 2009 at 5:12 pmScalia carefully words his opinions just enough to avoid being impeached from the bench…
And Republicons still consider themselves as the party of life, family values, truth, justice etc.,?
You have entered the Twilight Zone…
August 17th, 2009 at 5:12 pmScalia has the kind of scarily brilliant mind that over the centuries has produced dictators, warrior popes, the divine right of kings and other abuses of reason. For him it is all abstraction and mental gymnastics, no question of moral behavior or individual human worth. That kind of thinking also explains why he is a devout uber-Catholic: this is the twisted logic of medieval theologians.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:12 pmThe Constitution doesn’t say water is wet, either. Geez — some things are so obvious you wouldn’t think there has to be a law set up for them, and executing a defendent who has managed to convince a court he’s innocent should be toward the top of the list.
I can just see what this would lead to. If it has to be in the Constitution, then an amendment is required. Which means that what is obvious to any thinking person (we shouldn’t execute innocent people) will become a debate for both houses of Congress, and then in every state legislature if it makes it as far as the ratification process. Obama will no doubt come out against executing innocent people, which means all the Obama-haters will find reasons (lame ones, of course) to be in favor of it.
And all the wingnut sadists will be claiming that it should be OK to execute innocent people (echoed by trolls here). Like the torture debate, the topic will be a subject for intense debate, discussion, and analysis instead of being the no-brainer it actually is.
All because Scalia just likes to kill people.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:13 pmScalia is a politician in black robes. Look at his role during Florida vote count in 2000 when he cajoled fellow judges to keep overturning the Florida supreme court judgements.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:14 pmScalia seems to have missed any discussion about “cruel and unusual punishment” in law school. It’s difficult to imagine what could be more cruel than to be executed for a crime you didn’t commit.
It’s sickening that Scalia and Thomas appear to believe that the Founding Fathers would have approved of this argument, and simply shrugged their shoulders about hanging a man they knew to be innocent.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:15 pmWell, so much for an EOL [end of life] discussion with this guy.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:15 pmOur law says innocence is the ultimate defense. If our high court disagrees, they are violating our law.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:16 pmCompassionate conservatives … I think we found your man
August 17th, 2009 at 5:16 pmOUTRAGEOUS!
And the RightNutz worry about getting an
activist judge in courts?
Hell…they are already there!
August 17th, 2009 at 5:17 pmSounds like policy making, not a clear interpretation of our laws.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:18 pmOh, if only we could somehow get him wrongly convicted of murder and see how commited he is to this view.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:18 pmIf Bill Clinton can be impeached for lying about a hummer in a closet, Scalia can be impeached for blatantly saying he believes violation of US law is acceptable.
Justices can be impeached by Congress. This statement is an impeachable offense.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:20 pmScalia is a practicing Roman Catholic and, just like Jesus, he is in favor of executing the innocent.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:21 pmScalia is wrong to say all that, if he is innocent, the guy should go free, as should anyone in that situation…
All I want to add, is why is he still alive if he was sentenced to die 20 years ago?
August 17th, 2009 at 5:22 pmWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Is the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional??? This should be impeachable….
August 17th, 2009 at 5:25 pmMissmolly is on to something.
Democrats should introduce a Constitutional Amendment Forbiding the Execution of Innocent People.
Let’s have the Vote.
I thought the constitution guaranteed Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:25 pmBut apparently this only applies to those Innocent Americans who have NOT been falsely convicted.
I have to agree though, this is quite activist especially from a supreme court with a fairly high record of overturns. That is they they go, on average, to not follow precedence. And with comments like Scalia, thats blinfold is falling off that gold plated women holding the scales of justice over there.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:26 pmI dream of being able to impeach this human aberration off the bench.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:27 pm*
All I want to add, is why is he still alive if he was sentenced to die 20 years ago?
Because the appeal system works? Because if he had been executed 19 years ago he would now be an ‘oops, we goofed’ footnote in legal history? Because our legal system is flawed enough that the death penalty should be a last resort?
Take your pick, stampede88.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:27 pmI don’t guess Scalia ever had the insight to wonder why he is called “Justice.”
August 17th, 2009 at 5:33 pmconservatives are SO PRO-LIFE that “they’re willing to kill them all, let God sort them out”…gee where have we heard that before?
August 17th, 2009 at 5:33 pmRush Limbaugh in a robe? And this is NOT judicial activism, am I right?
August 17th, 2009 at 5:34 pmNotice how Scalia has no problem allowing an innocent person die but what if the person was one of his own children? Law Makers with power sometimes abuse it. Now Clarence Thomas is just a TOKEN and does what he’s told by Scalia. Scalis knows where he’s going and it’s not heaven so he cause as much damage as possible while here on earth.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:34 pmHow quaintly Macheavelean. Right and wrong are irrelevant to this fool. He is intelligent the way Rumsfeld is intelligent: that is to say, not at all.
I would say that a member of his family should fall victim to his insanity, but that wouldn’t matter much to him, simply because it’s not him.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:36 pmGeorge says – Hehehe…I decidered alot of death on innocents…it’s a Conservative Family Value…just like Christ would have done…you know, all…eye for an eye type of stuff…why when I was governor I had all these death row guys begging for their lives…claiming they were innocent and stuff…why are you on death row then…that’s what I would say…I have a whole collection of their faces when they got their just desserts too…sorta like a family values album…Dick has an even better one, with all those death hit squads of his and all…just ask Dick.
Dick says – I need fresh blood of the innocents.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:37 pmThat scumbag Scalia needs to get his priorities straight.
He may have no problem with executing the innocenct (as long as it’s not one of his loved ones), but he has a major problem with oral sex. He has repeatedly cited “Judeo-Christian” natural law for the increased sanctions against oral and anal sex.
He was yelling at law students several years ago, because one of them asked him if his wife had ever serviced him orally. He had a total meltdown.
What a lunatic!
August 17th, 2009 at 5:37 pmStampede88 says:
Did you READ the part where 7 of the nine witnesses recanted AND said they were coerced by the police? Also ONE of the witnesses is also a suspect. There are a lot of questions on this one and lots of reasons for appeals
August 17th, 2009 at 5:39 pmI can see why Ted Haggard sinned now…
August 17th, 2009 at 5:40 pmWhat does it take to remove a justice from the SCOTUS?
August 17th, 2009 at 5:40 pmWhen a judge flatly states that his “interpretation” of the Constitution makes no allowance for an innocent man to challenge his conviction, there is something drastically wrong with him and the system that keeps him in his seat.
UCSBKitty says:
The quote is from the Catholic Bishop during the siege of Langedouc. When asked what to do with the folk of the town who were not part of the Catharite rebellion, that was his response.
“Kill them all, God will know his own.”
August 17th, 2009 at 5:41 pmI read on a blog somewhere that in Italian, scalia, means Torquemada.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:43 pmI know that it’s not true, but it seems appropos doesn’t it?
Marie, Congress has the same impeachment power over Scotus justices.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:43 pmScalia has long been on record as saying essentially “Hey, life is unfair. Get Over It. My job is not to mete out ‘justice,’ it’s to narrowly rule on the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ within my interpretation of what words commonly meant at the time of the establishment of the Constitution. I could give a flip about the ‘why’ part (doing moral justice). Not my job.”
August 17th, 2009 at 5:45 pmFat chance of Congress removing Scalia from the bench. They barely let Sotomayor on the bench after weeks of histrionics and their claims of bigotry (they blamed her for their own).
August 17th, 2009 at 5:47 pmTo get a committee, much less the Senate, to act to remove a SC Justice is like wishing on one hand and spitting in the other — which one do you think you’ll find when you open your hands?
Scalia is an old school authoritarian, who cannot envision a politically motivated prosecution. He thinks all prosecutors sit at the right hand of God, and are infallible. He’s a scared child, dressed up in legalism, to hide his fear. That he acts out his fears from the bench is what is really scary.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:48 pmSo Scalia says, life is unfair – get over it.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:49 pmHow much do you think he would squeal if he were on the receiving end of such unfair treatment?
Sick, twisted, maybe highly intelligent, but a completely amoral and evil person is Scalia. Thomas is just an Uncle Tom, who never deserved the seat on the bench in the first place, but while I believe that, I don’t think he is evil incarnate as Scalia.
Human history can be looked at as the history of stupid disciples. Scalia is a textualist.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:50 pmwhat excellent judicial temperament!
August 17th, 2009 at 5:50 pmEven after eight years of Chimpy and The Dick I gotta believe that executing someone who is innocent would qualify as “cruel and unusual punishment”. Guess like most wingnuts he never read past the second amendment. Obviously never got to the eighth.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:52 pmWe know for sure we have at least one sociopath on the Supreme Court.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:55 pmDid Clarence Thomas offer any words explaining why he thinks an innocent man who was wrongly convicted should not be able to challenge his conviction?
August 17th, 2009 at 6:01 pmUncle Tom usually keeps a low profile — today he was seen hiding behind Scalia’s robe.
@Marie says:
So Scalia says, life is unfair – get over it.
How much do you think he would squeal if he were on the receiving end of such unfair treatment?
___
He also thinks torture is Constitutional, if used tactically, and not simply as punishment. See
http://bgladd.blogspot.com/2008/02/catachresis.html
August 17th, 2009 at 6:02 pmThese are the same people that forced George W. Bush on us in 2000. Therefore these people must also believe that it is not uconstitutional to subvert democratic process. So what else is new?
August 17th, 2009 at 6:04 pmScalia represents the degree to which the Right has subverted the spirit and letter of the law for a perverse reading thereof. Since 2000 these judicial perverts have shown their unbridled stupidity in all of its foulness. For them the law ended before the adoption of the Bill of Rights (save the 2nd Amendment) and then cherry-pick the remaining amendments. In a way, the RATS are trying to eviscerate the rights that we have tried so hard to develop over our history.
Perhaps the biggest problem comes from the rapidly advancing sciences related to forensics and DNA. As these advances enable law enforcement to do a better job, traditional legal procedures must be altered to allow these sciences to fully reinforce our faith in our criminal justice system. Scalia is too arrogant to even admit that police and courts do make errors, and they must be made answerable when they are proven wrong.
August 17th, 2009 at 6:07 pmwhile expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.
Why put “actual innocence” in quotes? What does he mean innocence is not constitutionally cognizable?
Do you mean the law of the land has no provision that allows the overturning of a false conviction? Or that someone can be convicted of a crime regardless of what the evidence indicates?
I believe the technical name for such proceedings is “kangaroo court”.
I am beginning to think a wise Latina does render a better decision than any middle-aged White man under any circumstance after all…
August 17th, 2009 at 6:13 pmAnother reason why I am totally against the death penalty: Crazed justices on the Supreme Court.
August 17th, 2009 at 6:19 pmIt is Scalia’s “originaltst” way of not ever having to say sorry, or we made a mistake.
August 17th, 2009 at 6:21 pmScalia’s comments are not those of a sane man. I think it is entirely appropriate to impeach him for mental illness.
The fascist Republican Party has destroyed the rule of law in America. We are a nation in anarchy, and until we restore the rule of law, we will remain in anarchy.
Our laws are not enforced for privileged Republicans. Bush and Cheney publicly confessed to ordering torture, but still go unpunished. We have insane judges in the highest court, and you can bet nothing will be done about it.
America is one funked up country.
August 17th, 2009 at 6:28 pmWhen will this fat f#ck die and make room for progress? Seriously this is the same souless dick that said torturing was just fine with him. He and George Bush get hard-ons at the mere thought of another black man put to death. Do you like the company you keep Clarence?
August 17th, 2009 at 6:29 pmScalia is a sociopath and he should be impeached.
August 17th, 2009 at 6:31 pmHow many visited the underlined link?
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/hearing-on-innocence-claim-ordered/
“The Supreme Court, over two Justices’ dissents, on Monday ordered a federal judge in Georgia to consider and rule on the claim of innocence in the murder case against Troy Anthony Davis (In re Davis, 08-1443) The Court told the District Court to “receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes [Davis'] innocence.””
Scalia and Thomas dissented meaning they are in the minority, hence theirs is a minority opinion as it should be.
August 17th, 2009 at 6:39 pm“This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.”
Either he’s making the supernatural claim that a defendant, who has already been executed, can go on to convince a habeas corpus court of his innocence.
Or he’s saying that there is nothing in the Constitution to keep a convicted man from being executed, even if he proves his innocence.
Or he’s saying, more specifically, that the court has never interpreted the Constitution as forbidding the pure insanity of “conviction to exoneration to execution”.
Exactly what Constitution has this guy been smoking?
August 17th, 2009 at 6:42 pmWhat about getting him disbarred? I’d have to check on the rules, but can a disbarred attorney serve on the bench?
August 17th, 2009 at 6:44 pmthe rapidly advancing sciences related to forensics and DNA.
One can only imagine how disturbed Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, two of our founding fathers and early applied science researchers, would be at the thought of these advances being ignored in our governance and seeking of justice.
Scalia once again proves his lack of basic humanity.
August 17th, 2009 at 6:46 pmI had a big old screed worked up. But it just isn’t good enough.
There is only one way to reflect how I feel about this:
What the eff, man?
August 17th, 2009 at 6:46 pmoldfuzz
I’m not particularly comfortable with it even being a minority opinion.
This man, who sits on the highest court in the country, just said that it’s okay to execute a man who’s guilt is in question. That’s appalling in the deepest sense.
He’s essentially claiming that it’s okay to murder this guy. What a sick f***.
August 17th, 2009 at 6:48 pmIf we are lucky, Scalia will develop premature Alzheimers or some other malady and retire early.
August 17th, 2009 at 6:52 pmAnd in the case of Gitmo detainees, you don’t even need to bother with the formalities of a jury trial. If they look guilty, then it’s all good.
August 17th, 2009 at 6:55 pmWhat?! No trolls to defend Scab-lia and Uncle Tom?
August 17th, 2009 at 7:06 pmEverything we were ever told about how
August 17th, 2009 at 7:26 pmgreat our system of government is, was
a LIE.
Scalia lives in a fantasy world where is actions have no consequences, for him.
August 17th, 2009 at 7:56 pmI guess all that “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” stuff is just B.S. from the Founding Fathers!
DISGRACEFUL!!!
August 17th, 2009 at 7:57 pmWell now…. OK to kill innocent, kind of reminds one of Bush AG and “quaint documents” AKA Constitution-Geneva Convention, etc. Worse is these two SC clowns, Mr S/T, are openly supported by thugs cutting off discussion of health care and their spokes”lady” from AK, a Senator from O, Rush, FOX, and other fools,shouting lies about “Obama death panels etc”. Hmmmm, sort of seems they sort of have a fixation about citizens and death, as no lie to great for HC, so casual on killing innocents. Welcome to the increasingly dark side of our USA, getting worse each day.
August 17th, 2009 at 8:15 pmBut not to worry, they want everyone, only “good trusted citizens” of course, well trained by firing 50 shots from their pistols.. they can run own death panels, executions and “defend their Rights.. yes USA a nation of laws”.. even worse way down at most local levels. RIP USA, you rotted, defeated, went down from with in.. ..
Limiting ones nation to the exact words of men who lived in the eighteenth century is bizarre. What exactly is it about that time that they think is so mystically, magically perfect?
August 17th, 2009 at 8:18 pmOh, and not seeing the obvious limits of an analytical tool is stooopid.
August 17th, 2009 at 8:19 pmThis from the guy who overruled Florida state law and ordered a stop to the 2000 recount and appointed Bushco president even though they did’nt “actually” have the most votes. That worked out great for the US and the rest of the world, did’nt it!
Could this assclown be any more of a pompous jerk?
“Activist judges” anyone?
Peace :)
August 17th, 2009 at 8:28 pmHow can he possibly conclude it was a fair trial if all the witnesses recant and one of the witnesses is the possible shooter? Could it be because Scalia is probably the worst Supreme court justice in the history of this country ?
August 17th, 2009 at 8:29 pmUnfortunately I think he may be right. Until it actually happens and is proveable in court and somebody with standing sues all the way to the Supreme Court and they agree to hear it, then they have yet to take a position on it. I think that’s his logic anyway.
August 17th, 2009 at 8:33 pmThe people of the USA need to understand that being appointed for life does not mean that we cannot get rid of people like Scalia. There is the ability to impeach people like Scalia who clearly belongs on fox news over the supreme court. It is about time to get rid of these people who clearly are not those that we want on the court. Why wait for the grim reaper when we can impeach the bum along with others on the court. We have lost our country because we have elected presidents who would appoint people like scalia.
August 17th, 2009 at 8:48 pmHow soon will this disgusting waste of flesh die so he can be replaced on the court by a human being?
August 17th, 2009 at 8:57 pmThe death penalty id fiscally irresponsible…
August 17th, 2009 at 9:19 pmMaybe it’s just me and my idealism, but wouldn’t executing the innocent under any circumstances whatever be a violation of the eighth amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishments” clause? What would be, I wonder, a more cruel and unusual punishment than executing an innocent person?
Or maybe since we’re all guilty of ‘original sin’ at birth … Oh, ok, I guess now I get it.
August 17th, 2009 at 9:22 pmdbadass says:
The death penalty id fiscally irresponsible…
___________
Considering what a phenomenal bunch of cheapskates the righties are, I’m amazed they haven’t picked up on this.
August 17th, 2009 at 9:35 pmThat’s what you get when you divorce the law from ethics ala neocons.
Not to mention, it isn’t specifically mentioned in the Constitution but is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, echoing Aristotle’s Ethics:
We Hold these truths to be self evident that all men…are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights,..among these are LIFE, LIBERTY,….
August 17th, 2009 at 9:37 pmbuffalo nickel says:
This from the guy who overruled Florida state law and ordered a stop to the 2000 recount and appointed Bushco president even though they did’nt “actually” have the most votes. That worked out great for the US and the rest of the world, did’nt it!
__________
Scalia is also the one who opined “Jack saved Los Angeles. … He saved hundreds of thousands of lives…” when debating the necessity and legality of torture.
We’re talking about a sitting SCOTUS judge who can’t tell the difference between reality and a television show…
August 17th, 2009 at 9:40 pmIsn’t there some way to remove this joker and his man Friday from the pack? These two clowns should be cleaning the toilets in the building, not administering Constitutional law.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:02 pmJudge Scalia is 73. Sen. Grassley (sorry to be OT) is 75.
It is not unusual, or really anything to be ashamed of, to have difficulty making such life-altering decisions at this age.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:10 pmBut it is not fair to the people whose lives it effects.
Scalia reminds me of that Homeland Security psycho that wipes his butt with the Constitution in Harold and Kumar. Despicable thug.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:11 pmScalia is right. The Constitution allows the Government to execute an innocent person, so long as that person has had “due process.” And the Constitution does not define “due process.”
The Constitution does not outlaw murder, either. Nor rape, kidnapping, theft, or speeding, for that matter.
So much for the sanctity of life. One can murder a doctor because s/he performs legal medical services.
And the government can murder an innocent person, because the guilty one got away.
NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY THE CIVILIZED WORLD HAS BANNED THE DEATH PENALTY???
(The United States can no longer lay claim to being part of the civilized world.)
August 17th, 2009 at 10:15 pmI wonder if Clarence Thomas wipes his ass before checking in with Scalia to make sure it’s ok. Put a 35 dollar robe on these clowns and they actually believe they can walk on water. That robe and title doesn’t mean didley crap if you don’t follow the Constitution. Where do these Republican presidents find these pukes? On the back side of a book of matches?
August 17th, 2009 at 10:16 pmIsn’t there a fourteenth amendment to said constitution?
August 17th, 2009 at 10:19 pmSomething about, oh, let’s see, equal protection under the law?
One word: Appalling.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:25 pmScalia and Thomas already have the blood of over 5000 American service personel and untold hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan and who knows where else in the world, as a direct result of their decision in Bush vs Gore.
Guess one more innocent’s death does’nt even phase them at this point.
Souless SOB’s.
Peace :)
August 17th, 2009 at 11:01 pmHe makes me feel ashamed that we have such people on scotus.
August 17th, 2009 at 11:04 pmDoes it truly surprise anyone that this is coming from a clown who said about five years ago that we ought to have more orgies to relieve stress?
August 17th, 2009 at 11:06 pmThat greasy little bastard missed his calling; he should have been a kneecapper/enforcer/hit man for the frikkin’ Mob.
Feh. *spit*
August 17th, 2009 at 11:24 pmkilling an innocent person isn’t cruel and unusual punishment?
August 17th, 2009 at 11:32 pm“Feh. *spit*”
My sentiments exactly, Annie.
August 17th, 2009 at 11:35 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
conservative guy says:
And yet liberals have no problem killing an innocent fetus.
August 17th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
That reminds me…I need to schedule my next abortion.
August 17th, 2009 at 11:53 pmJustice Scalia is referring to limits on appeals that he and his conservative brethern have instituted in recent years. A defendant is ONLY allowed to appeal procedural errors and even these must be raised at the original trial or even this is not allowed. This is discussed in detail in Helen Prejean’s book “The Death of Innocents”. (a book that should be more widely read)
August 18th, 2009 at 12:06 amSo when he says that the Supreme Court isn’t concerned with actual innocence, he is right according to the rules he and his conservative fellow justices like very much.
(You may remember the recent case in FL where a man was on death row for 20 some years based primarily on the discredited testimony of a dog handler. All his appeals were denied, and the state left him in prison for those 20 years despite knowing the testimony was dubious. The man learned about the dubious testimony from his cell in 2006, and FL still strung out everything until 2009 before he got out.)
That this should be so, is questionable at best, but we are talking here about Justices that don’t care all that much about justice, and seldom, if ever have ruled in favor of an ordinary citizen on anything. Conservative, yes, activist, yes, although he would probably deny that, justice, you will have to search for that. It will take considerable effort to find.
God this man is so perverted looking. He reminds me of the kind of dirty old man you would see in an adult book store in a booth in the back masturbating with drool coming out of his mouth.
Ick!
August 18th, 2009 at 12:10 amWhen the Constitution is held not to forbid the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent, it may be time to amend the Constitution to ensure that a person who is “actually” innocent is not executed.
Supreme Court Justices who doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable need
August 18th, 2009 at 12:11 ama reality check. The laws are made for man, not man for laws. When rules of evidence and court procedures are shown by reference to objective, credible and scientifically provable facts to have led to a flawed conclusion, refusal to acknowledge the error brings the legal system into disrepute.
“The laws are made for man, not man for laws.”
Well put, Michael.
Goodnight, everyone.
August 18th, 2009 at 12:26 amThen I would take it that the Constitution has no guarantee of justice or fairness in law. And we have two (in)justices who recognize that salient fact.
Hell, why bother with judges? Let’s throw all the bastards out and let the accused shoot craps or draw straws for guilt or innocence, life or death. I suppose that’s really a little far-fetched for me – I’d go with a random number generator…
:)
August 18th, 2009 at 12:45 amconservativePUNK
You are a liar. You are a dispicable putrid piece of garbage. Just go kill yourself. Your wife wants you to kill yourself. You children wants you to kill yourself. Everyone who ever knew you despise you so much you are such a plague rat of a subhuman moron everyone who has ever set eyes on you wants you to kill yourself. Do the only decent thing you have ever done in your life and go kill yourself
August 18th, 2009 at 12:47 amHere’s hoping this f’n wop dies as a result of an extremely painful and god-forsaken death tonight!
August 18th, 2009 at 12:54 amConservativePUNK
Lets hope we can abort your protege at the moment of conception!
August 18th, 2009 at 12:56 am.
The MAFIA always think…
… Kill first, ask questions NEVER!
Surprised?
I’m not.
.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:01 amconservative guy says:
And yet liberals have no problem killing an innocent fetus.
And yet Conservonazis have no problem murdering innocent BABIES in an illegal war (Iraq) and assuring that poor people in the US die by the thousands on a yearly basis because they can’t afford healthcare.
STFU moron!
August 18th, 2009 at 1:10 amconservative guy says:
And yet liberals have no problem killing an innocent fetus.
__________
Nice broad, unfocused, self-serving, and ultimately pointless generalization.
Try making a “real point” sometime…
I know… I know… it makes your head hurt… but in the end… you’ll feel better about yourself.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:15 amScalia makes sense, unlike all you guys. First, there is nothing cruel or unusual about being executed. Conversely, if there were then all executions would be unconstitutional. The cruel and unusual refers to the manner of punishment so the context (guilt or innocence) is irrelevant to that consideration.
Second, and most importantly, our system of justice is indeed imperfect and we need to recognize it and deal with it otherwise we will have no justice at all. If a man cannot be considered guilty after being found guilty in a court of law then there is no way to declare a man guilty at all. Anyone can always find some claim to their innocence post factum. Some of those claims may stand up to legal scrutiny, some may not (hence his use of quotation marks) but in the end the system needs to be able to draw the line, take a deep breath and say “screw it, this guy is guilty, kill him.” Otherwise, all criminals will use appeals forever and noone will ever be pronounced guilty and no justice will ever be done. Scalia is doing more for justice than you may think. Him and Thomas may be the only two thinking of our legal system as a whole so you better hope that these legal giants outlive all others on the SCotUS.
Now, I am not even a right winger. I have never voted for Bush or any other Republican. But reading this insanity here makes me want to puke. the left is no better.
P.S. A sociopath is typically physically aggressive and cannot hold a steady job. Scalia has done very well for himself and is not a sociopath. He may be a brilliant legal mind that you disagree with but that’s about it.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:43 ammyob,
It’s cruel and unusual to execute an innocent man — especially if you KNOW he’s innocent.
That’s what Scalia would have us do (and you, apparently).
I don’t care how you identify yourself politically, you are sick.
The death penalty is wrong and should be abolished.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:47 amIn the legal sense, you do KNOW he is innocent if he has already been found guilty. There is no way to KNOW that unless he is retried and there is due process for getting a retrial. No-one is above due process, so if he is not entitled to a retrial, then execution it is. What part of justice SYSTEM do you not understand.
//Sorry for the caps. Zooey started it :)
August 18th, 2009 at 1:50 amUm, sorry. I meant:
August 18th, 2009 at 1:51 amIn the legal sense, you DO NOT KNOW he is innocent if he has already been found guilty.
No Scalia does NOT make sense and we KNOW he is innocent because innocence is part of Scalias statement. I dont even know how the thought can form in your head that it is NOT cruel to execute an innocent person. It is absurd. Making excuses for such blatant moronit is also absurd
August 18th, 2009 at 1:54 amIf you read the linked article, you will see:
August 18th, 2009 at 2:01 am“The Court’s action set off a sharply-worded exchange — Justice Stevens on one side, Justice Scalia on the other — over the strength of Davis’ claim to be innocent…”
In other words, Scalia does not believe he is innocent and sure enough, there is no wording to that effect in his statement. Rather he mocks the judge for making the motion to the Supreme Court by using quotation marks.
Let me ask a related but different question. Why do you think the guy is innocent? Just because some article on the web said so and gave some facts that may or may not hold up under full legal scrutiny?
FTFA:
“There is no sound basis for distinguishing an actual-innocence claim fromany other claim that is alleged to have produced a wrong-ful conviction.”
the guy doesn’t dispute being there during the crime. he’s trying to set a new precedent by saying he’s ‘actually innocent’ when he’s, at least, an accomplice. And you get punished either way. A review board also looked at the new testimony and denied to change the judgment. It’s likely that there’s more to the story here than simply that ZOMG!!1! innocent man gots killeds!!!1!!
And by saying ‘actual innocence’ Scalia is quoting the new standard this guy is trying to raise, not addressing the question of whether he is truly innocent. If you read the dissent, you’d understand that.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:02 ammyob,
I know they don’t know yet if this guy is innocent. My point is that Scalia wrote this dissent essentially saying that he didn’t care if he was innocent or not, and that new evidence should not be admissible.
Witnesses have recanted their stories, which says to me that he never really got a fair trial. Scalia is just fine with killing this guy anyway.
What the hell is wrong with you, that you think that’s okay?
August 18th, 2009 at 2:03 ammyob says:
Let me ask a related but different question. Why do you think the guy is innocent? Just because some article on the web said so and gave some facts that may or may not hold up under full legal scrutiny?
August 18th, 2009 at 2:01 am
I don’t know if he’s innocent. Witnesses have recanted, and there is doubt. He deserves a new trial. He may be found guilty again. Fine. He can spend the rest of his life in jail.
Why do you think he shouldn’t get that consideration?
August 18th, 2009 at 2:05 amActually, I need to get to bed, so I’m done.
I’m against the death penalty in all cases. I doubt we will change each other’s minds on this.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:07 amYes, I guess so. I see due process as a rigid mechanism. You write procedures ahead of time and under no circumstances deviate from that no matter how compelling the counterarguments.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:27 amAnd we actually agree on death penalty, amazingly enough. I am against it too. But so long as our current due process has it, we should defend the due process, otherwise we will have no justice.
Thomas is like the scarecrow (no brain) and Scalia is like the Tin Man (no heart) from the Wizard of Oz. What a peachy pair they make. We can only hope that Sotomayor won’t be a cowardly lion.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:33 amThis man should be removed from the SCOTUS for being an EVIL dictator if for not other reason. He is clearly insane and has no place sitting in judgement of others. What happened to the Constitution he claims to go by? Him and that Uncle Tom Clarence make my blood boil. If he weren’t on the court he’d be a tin horn dictator of some small country carrying out crimes against humanity and killing innocent women and children. Take it from me Antinon you are a sick little axxhole who should be locked up in a mental hospital because you worship evil doers. You sir are going to burn in hell for all of the evil you’ve done while sitting in judgement of the helpless, poor and the hudled masses. May you burn in hell for ever and ever and those you’ve trampled on should spit on your grave. You sick little f_ck. By the way, how could someone with such and big head be so stupid?
August 18th, 2009 at 2:38 ammyob says:
In other words, Scalia does not believe he is innocent and sure enough, there is no wording to that effect in his statement
There ISNT?
This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent
So you are saying the Habeas Court is CONVINCED of his innocence, NOT of a technical infraction but CONVINCED of his innocence but to you this DOESNT mean he is in fact innocent? That is quite a stretch. However lets leave that and just ask THIS. Are you saying that with evidence compelling enough to CONVINCE A HABEAS COURT of innocence YOU would STILL want the man executed just in CASE he might actually be guilty or that this would NOT be a violation of the constitution? IF this were carried out very many times, that is if it were POLICY, there really isnt any question logically that eventually the Habeas Court would be right and an innocent man WOULD be executed so we are back to the FACT we ARE talking about executing an innocent man. So YEAH there really isnt any way out of this. Forget THIS specific case we are talking about policy when we say nothing in the constitution prevents it so he IS saying it is OK by the constitution to execute innocent people. I say that is absurd on the face of it and excusing it is just as absurd
August 18th, 2009 at 3:09 amLike I said, the justice is carried out imperfectly. Our first priority should not be achieving perfect judgment but rather achieving perfect adherence to due process. Some innocent people were executed in the past and some will in the future. Let’s not bring our legal machine to a grinding halt over it.
Every machine has a failure rate. Accept it and move on. Imagine not building hard drives because they have a measurable bit error rate. Imagine not writing operating systems because they may crash every once in a while. This is where your arguments lead for our legal system – no justice system at all (because no justice system can be perfect). Wake up and think big.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:25 amThis guy, supposedly a sane Supreme Court justice is a menace to society, But, wait, wait! This is the guy that the far right says is the model for fine Supreme Court justices. It is absolutely astounding how truly DUMB and clueless this guy really seems. I now can see why the Republican side of the court needs to run interference for Scalia because every time he opens his mouth, he truly frightens folks to death with his lack of sensible reasoning.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:31 amBut the Constitution does say that just because a right isn’t listed doesn’t mean you don’t have it.
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
August 18th, 2009 at 4:25 ammyob says:
So then you are saying it is OK to execute innocent people? That is in effect what you are saying. I mean you are saying we should IGNORE evidence of innocence enough to convince a court and just execute people and say WELL nothing is perfect? Is that a joke? Would YOU be willing to take one for the justice team. I guess it would be ok if that innocent person executed were YOU or say YOUR CHILD. Because they are all someones child and you are talking about not even TRYING that hard to NOT execute innocent people. To just tell them we went this far and at this point even with evidence enough to convince a COURT of your innocence we are just going to execute you ANYWAY and oh WELL mistakes happen. That is not only absurd it is ghoulish
August 18th, 2009 at 4:31 amMYOB
YOU need to wake up and smell the stench of what you are shovelling
August 18th, 2009 at 4:44 am“I guess it would be ok if that innocent person executed were YOU or say YOUR CHILD.”
Yes, if I am (or my child is) convicted then sure.
“not even TRYING that hard to NOT execute innocent people”
Please define, how many dollars does a system need to spend to review a case before it counts as “that hard”. Before you get on your high horse, do some accounting, crunch some numbers and define what you are talking about. In many societies throughout history, even a single appeal would be an achievement. Our system tries damn hard. But at the end of the day, our laws say that some people need to be executed. Don’t like that? Repeal death penalty. Until then, execute away.
August 18th, 2009 at 4:59 amOne wonders why we even bother to have a Constitution.
one wonders what the threshold is for impeaching a Supreme Court justice is for extreme incompetence, inhumanity, and sociopathic behavior.
One wonders what the American people’s tolerance is for being lead by sick psychotic violent republican goons.
August 18th, 2009 at 5:33 amSo, a question comes to mind. Has anyone bothered to read the actual order put into action by the court or Scalia’s opinion (or Stevens’, for that matter). Going on the assumption that no, most of the posters here haven’t, I’ll lay out the basics. Feel free to check me on these, by the way, as Scalia’s opinion, which it seems likely Mr. Millhiser either didn’t fully read, or at least comprehend, is conveniently linked in the article.
So, first, the actual order enacted by SCOTUS:
The peti-tion for a writ of habeas corpus is transferred to theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia for hearing and determination. The District Court should receive testimony and make findings of factas to whether evidence that could not have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes petitioner’s innocence.
This can be found here: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/court-order-Davis.pdf , followed by Stevens’ opinion for those interested in reading it. What this does, as Scalia points out in his dissent, is send the case back to the federel district court for the area, a court which has absolutely no authority to provide any remedy or in fact do anything that would have any manner of bearing on the case. As Scalia points out in his opinion, federal statute and case law explicitly forbids federal issue of a writ of habeus corpus “with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim . . . resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” This is where the language so interestingly isolated in the article comes in. The justices that granted the writ seem to believe that the petitioners claim of innocence creates some sort of constitutional issue, and justice Scalia is simply pointing out, quite correctly, that no such constitutional issue is created by this claim. This does not mean, nor, I think would justice Scalia say that it is perfectly good and well to execute people who are innocent. What he does say, for those who bother to read it, is simply that a claim of innocence does not create a constitutional issue which would grant a federal court the ability under the law to act in the case.
Stevens does say that the District court might find that the statute that prevents the federal court from acting is not applicable in this case (something Scalia believes there is no wording or reasoning to infer from the statute itself). Scalia, however, says that if there is a question of whether the statute would apply in cases of original writ of habeus corpus, or even of whether capital punishment cases would constitute a constitutional issue, that the Court itself should hear the case and decide these issues.
So, in brief, Scalia has an issue with the court issuing an order with no teeth that is already, as far as the case law and relevent statutes are concerned, beyond the power of the federal court system to remedy. However, as he suggests, the court could choose to actually hear the case and make a ruling actually granting the District court the ability to act in a meaningful way. So yeah, dissenting with useless action makes a man evil. Good call.
I could also go on to talk about rule of law and dual sovereignty and other such crazy, out there topics, but I think we can all agree this is probably long enough already.
August 18th, 2009 at 5:46 amCan you just imagine the look on fat Tony’s face if someone showed up outside one of his speaking engagements with a AR-15 over his shoulder?
While you are enjoying that image–SEND BACON!!!
August 18th, 2009 at 5:58 ammyob says:
NO you define for ME how much a life is worth. Give me a number so we wont annoy you with the amount of innocent people being killed til we reach that number. It isnt too much to ask to go the extra mile before KILLING someone. Remember we arent talking about endless USELESS appeals we are talking about evidence that CONVINCES A COURT OF INNOCENCE. You would say well we aknowledge that you are PROBABLY innocent I mean you convinced a court and we COULD save you but it would cost too much money. How much money is YOUR CHILD worth? Lets use THAT number give me that dollar figure I am interested at where you would put it. YOU do the number crunching. At the end of the day if YOU are saying you have enough evidence of your INNOCENCE to convince a COURT but we are going to kill you ANYWAY then it ISNT a system of JUSTICE by any rational standard.
August 18th, 2009 at 7:02 amjr83 says:
That is an interesting argument. So would you say that it is an established legal principle that a life CANNOT be taken without due process of law? If so then wouldnt it be easy enough to establish that a miscarriage of justice WOULD be inherent in executing someone that has on his side a preponderance of evidence that he is innocent? Enough to convince a court? Is it due process if innocence itself is being overlooked? Your argument and perhaps Scalias seems to be on a narrow interpretation of this one law but what he said was there was nothing unconstitutional about executing an innocent man which I can see no argument would NOT be a violation of his civil rights under the law the Feds use to try cases of murder when they state courts couldnt convict during the sixties with all white juries. Is it reasonable to say there is NOT a civil rights violation in taking someones life unjustly? It would clearly BE unjust if there is that much evidence of innocence and if there is no civil rights violation how are they trying those muder cases which the feds tried as violating their civil rights by killing them?
August 18th, 2009 at 7:10 amScalia believes the Federal Supreme Court should not be able to overturn State Court decisions — unless a right-leaning court can seat a right-leaning President (then it’s OK!).
The writ of habeus corpus challenges the process of the lower courts.
State courts must abide by the Federal Constitution – first. So, even if processes are correct and legal in the state, they must also be thus at the Federal level.
The implication of “Due Process” is that the process is fair; that evidence provided to the court is complete and truthful. If evidence is not provided to the court, or evidence is found to be not truthful, than one can argue that there has not been “Due Process” only process.
The system or process that promotes known to be flawed evidence abridging the rights of the individual under the US Constitution can be challenged. Not every “legal process” in a state is legal in the Federal sense.
August 18th, 2009 at 7:17 amThe death penalty is a legal food chain that keeps real predators like Scalia in the loop. Other countries have recognized this and moved beyond this method of “punishment”.
August 18th, 2009 at 7:39 amIf we do away with the death penalty then we do away with the food chain/appeals process associated with it.
More importantly it takes away the ability for someone as morally bankrupt as Scalia to decide someones fate based on a political expediant.
Well then if that is the case then why not execute Scalia’s RACIST @$$!!!
August 18th, 2009 at 8:10 amAgreed: Scalia is a sociopath. HOWEVER, what he says this time happens to be true: such a reprehensible outcome is not “unconstitutional.” As my attorney reminded my ex many times over the years: “Going to court is not about what’s right, it’s about what’s legal.” (And, WOW, did she become an expert at exploiting *that*! ;-)
August 18th, 2009 at 8:44 amScalia has said this before.
August 18th, 2009 at 8:45 amLook up Herrera v Collins
There is something wrong with this man. If a person is convicted by the use of false information than the conviction is false.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:00 amof course Uncle Tom Clarence agrees. He better!! Yes sir boss no sir boss I is a good boy. And to think he took the seat from Thurgood Marshall. SHAME !!!
August 18th, 2009 at 9:13 amIs it just me or does Scallia look eerily similar to J Edgar Hoover?
Illegitmate son maybe?
August 18th, 2009 at 9:27 amErm, hello? Yes, it is unconstitutional completely based on the grounds that this Supreme Judge stated.
“This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.”
“full and fair trial”
“seven witnesses have recanted their statements”
In order to have a fair trial, all parties presenting themselves in court must swear under oath to be honest. If that many witnesses are going “wait, I take it back!”, then there’s obviously a problem on the prosecution’s side with witnesses who lied under oath. This in itself can constitute as a mistrial which will throw the conviction out, which brings us back to square one: the man is practically unconvicted of the crime and yet is in the penal system dealing with the supreme court despite the fact that the lower district or circuit court upon hearing the news of the witnesses who recanted their statements should have called a mistrial and thrown out the conviction.
tl;dr: The Supreme Justice has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to the law. Ironic.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:32 amCan a SC Justice be impeached for being dumber than a rock? This freak should be impeached and removed from the court.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:42 amActually, from a constitutional perspective he is correct. His statement clearly refers to innocent proven in “Habeas Court” as opposed to an appeal.
Prisoners sentenced to death also file petitions challenging the constitutionality of the state death penalty law. Habeas writs are different from and do not replace appeals, which are arguments for reversal of a conviction based on claims that the judge conducted the trial improperly. Often, convicted prisoners file both.
So in reality, any Judge overruling a death penalty in Habeas Court would be well overstepping his bounds in a ‘activist’ manner.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:53 amA process that is so inflexible so as to prohibit remanding a death penalty case to a trial court for the purpose of conducting an evidentiary hearing addressing an inmate’s claim of actual innocence is not “due.” If executing an innocent person does not offend the Constitution, despite superficial procedural fairness, I don’t know what does.
In response to some of the comments above, I counter that the Constitution’s Due Process Clause trumps federal statutes and controls case law; said differently, the federal habeas corpus laws are subservient to the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. Since when do we allow statutes to restrict the Constitution?
Because Scalia and Thomas routinely defend the government’s position in cases such as these, their dissent is not surprising. Fortunately, they were outnumbered and apparently outreasoned.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:57 amScalia is right … unfortunately. The courts only guarantee “due process of law”, and if the result is that you’re convicted, that’s that. As long as it was done fairly, so what if it’s wrong?
This is of course wrong … but it will take some better Supreme Court justices to change that.
#18: gummble-bee-itch says:
Scalia has already put forth the proposition that “cruel and unusual punishment” is only prohibited for those convicted of crimes. In this case, seeing as the person didn’t commit a crime, the Eighth Amendment wouldn’t apply … using ScaliaLogic™
Cheers,
August 18th, 2009 at 10:05 am#26 amish_edison says:
Hey, if it was good enough for Jesus…. ;-)
Cheers,
August 18th, 2009 at 10:06 amjr83, you hit the nail on the head. People, READ Scalia’s opinion before you parade your ignorance in public.
To draw out the issues a little further – for anyone willing to look at it – right after the quote everyone is offended by, Scalia notes (in reference to something in Justice Stevens’ arguments):
“But acknowledging that possibility would make a nullity of §2254(d)(1). There is no sound basis for distinguishing an actual-innocence claim from any other claim that is alleged to have produced a wrongful conviction. If the District Court here can ignore §2254(d)(1) on the theory that otherwise Davis’s actual-innocence claim would (unconstitutionally) go unaddressed, the same possibility would exist for any claim going beyond “clearly established Federal law.””
Or, to simplify, the majority opinion violates the stated section of the U.S. Code. And Scalia doesn’t just leave it there, as if the law is some kind of golden idol; he offers a solution:
“If we have new-found doubts regarding the constitutionality of §2254(d)(1), we should hear Davis’s application and resolve that question (if necessary) ourselves.”
In other words, if you really feel there’s a miscarriage of justice here, don’t wimp out and pass the ball to a court that can’t do anything anyway. Let’s handle the issue right here.
Then, after spending two pages noting the exhaustive review already given to Davis’ claims by the Georgia State Supreme Court, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals and the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, Scalia closes as follows:
“Today, without explanation and without any meaningful guidance, this Court sends the District Court for the Southern District of Georgia on a fool’s errand. That court is directed to consider evidence of actual innocence which has been reviewed and rejected at least three times, and which, even if adequate to persuade the District Court, cannot (as far as anyone knows) form the basis for any relief. I truly do not see how the District Court can discern what is expected of it. If this Court thinks it possible that capital convictions obtained in full compliance with law can never be final, but are always subject to being set aside by federal courts for the reason of “actual innocence,” it should set this case on our own docket so that we can (if necessary) resolve that question. Sending it to a district court that “might” be authorized to provide relief, but then again “might” be reversed if it did so, is not a sensible way to proceed.”
Sounds reasonable to me.
August 18th, 2009 at 10:10 am@ EugeneDebbs
The issue isn’t one of civil rights, or even innocence itself, but rather whether or not the federal courts have the standing to step in and interfere with the state proceedings. Now, if a structural breach had occured in either one of these areas, the petitioner might have a case. If it could be reasonably shown that the jury was biased or unduly influenced by outside sources, that might provide a grounds for the feds to step in. If the state courts refused to hear an appeal, that would be grounds as well. But the petitioner has made no such claims. As far as innocence goes, that is a determination to be made by the state courts. As Scalia notes in his opinion, the new evidence which the petitioner believes will exonerate him has already been reviewed on multiple occassions, and found wanting. Now, if it could be shown that these hearings were not conducted in accordance with the law, that some constitutional right had been violated in these proceedings, the court would also have standing to get the federal system involved. The very heart of the matter is this, and only this: whether or not the federal court system has standing to intervene in this state legal proceeding. According to the letter of the law, unless there has been some sort of structural breach, the answer is no, it does not. That is, of course, unless, as Stevens suggests, the District Court rule that the law in question does not apply to this particular type of case. While interpretation of the law is a role of the courts, if the statute in question contains no language of exemption for any sort of case, then the District Court would effectively be taking up a legislative role in making such a declaration, and thereby acting outside the bounds of its prescribed powers. As for whether or not executing the petitioner is a breach of his constitutional rights, this is a question that could have bearing on the ultimate outcome of the case, and, as Scalia says, should be ruled on by the Court itself if that is an issue of concern to the other justices. As it stands, however, the court has merely passed the buck to a court that has no power to do anything about the case unless it acts in a manner that is, in itself, unconstitutional.
August 18th, 2009 at 10:23 amTo those who assert that the inmate’s claim of innocence has been “exhaustive[ly]” reviewed, it appears that no evidentiary hearing has yet to be held: rather, the state courts merely reviewed affidavits of various witnesses who have recanted their trial testimony. Indeed, I wouldn’t characterize reading affidavits as an “exhaustive” review of the case.
Even Bob Barr believes that the failure to provide an evidentiary hearing would be unconstitutional. Here is the link:
http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=1162
August 18th, 2009 at 10:52 amScalia is not saying that it’s OK to execute an innocent man. He’s just saying that it’s not in the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, no more so that it would be a United Nation’s responsibility to monitor the legal system of Iran (a member state).
I suspect that Scalia is all in favor of having the pertinent governor (or the President) commute the sentence.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:06 am125. myob sez:
Yes, I guess so. I see due process as a rigid mechanism. You write procedures ahead of time and under no circumstances deviate from that no matter how compelling the counterarguments. …
What I see in that argument is a misunderstanding of process. The type of rigidity in a process that you propose allows no scope for correction or process improvement until after the fact, which in this instance means until after an injustice has been committed. If all the justices understood due process as you do, and apparently as Justice Scalia advocates, they would have denied, and the person making the appeal could have been dragged off to be whacked then and there. If at any time in the justice process reasonable doubt arises concerning a decision, we should be able to put that before a court and receive some consideration.
Mechanical rigidity is fine for machines; for human affairs, not so much. We haven’t turned out a perfect judge, jury or lawyer yet; that’s one reason for the existence of the appeals process. It’s better to slow down and review and reconsider than it is to arbitrarily assume rectitude in the process and go forth to the commission of injustice.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:22 ammay he die a slooowww and painful death.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:36 amSounds a lot like the logic of the Inquisition, however, No one expects a Spanish Inquisition
August 18th, 2009 at 11:36 amIn that case America, we can start with him,right?
August 18th, 2009 at 11:36 amThese guys are a threat to EVERYTHING that use to make America great and have to be stopped some how.
What is Clarence getting paid for? Hell, he can stay home and just fax his signature to anything Scalia writes! It is apparent Thomas has NO ability to think for himself. The gesture Scalia is performing in the picture is telling the US citizens to “go f@#k yourselves.
August 18th, 2009 at 12:57 pmSo, Scalia is OK with executing a innocent person if a jury incorrectly decides the defendant is guilty.
And yet in 2 cases – Cruzan in 1990 and Schiavo in 2005 – he opposed allowing the death of a person whom doctors had ruled was brain dead and had no chance of recovery.
Maybe Troy Anthony Davis’s lawyers should allow him to put in a vegetative state while they finish their appeals. That’ll deter Scalia from allowing him to be killed.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:39 pmdo hardcore conservatives get off on the death penalty just like they do on torture? It’s a death culture, not a culture of life…
August 18th, 2009 at 3:08 pmwow for once i’m pretty much in agreance with the “progressive thinkers” here but how ever i’ve got to say Justice Scalia is right in the aspect of there is nothing in the Constitution against it, i’m not saying i agree with this, because “if Davis is innocent”, than we should let the truth come out, that is the nice thing bout the appeals system. what is the old saying –”we’ld rather let a dozen guilty go free than to condem a innocent man”. though i am a conservative,- -truth beknowen i’m not so sure if i believe in capital punishment, it goes agaist my christain beliefs, “let he who is with out sin cast the first stone”. it not always easy to live up to that standard
August 18th, 2009 at 3:41 pmIts easy, dont call it the death penalty anymore.. call it late term abortion.. Now Progressives can be for it..
August 18th, 2009 at 4:05 pmImpeach Clarence Thomas
August 18th, 2009 at 4:19 pmWhat will Jesus say when he welcome Scalia home to the Whit Catholics Only Heaven(tm)?
August 18th, 2009 at 4:21 pmAs much as I think Scalia is usually more than a little off when it comes to whats what in the legal world peoples’ responses here certainly help strengthen my belief that the average person knows exactly jack squat about the law and reading the law.
August 18th, 2009 at 4:28 pmSCUM . .
Sad thing is if it was his own brother he’d feel the same way . .
Can’t wait until this good catholic [like Novak] gets to meet Saint Peter at those pearly gates . .
Good luck gettin’ thru those gates Tony . .
August 18th, 2009 at 4:52 pmmike@avahealth.org says:
—————————————-
Impeach Clarence Thomas
* * *
Mike, Clarence, who officiated at Pillboy’s wedding to Marta, is a mere lawn jockey and ball licker. He belongs in the SCOTUS like I belong in the Playboy Mansion . .
August 18th, 2009 at 4:55 pmAccording to Scalia’s theory of stupidity, an innocent person caught up in Law enforcement’s dragnet is out of luck if he/she does not have the financial and investigative resources to hire professionals to do the polices’ jobs for them.
August 18th, 2009 at 5:47 pmThe Right Wing has no trouble executing innocent people; yet they want to keep a fetus alive.
August 18th, 2009 at 5:53 pmThis piece is a typical liberal hit-job. Remarkable that the author linked to Scalia’s actual opinion – where it is obvious that the author has ridiculously caricatured Scalia’s reasoning to make it appear as if he doesn’t give a whit if innocent people are fried. Scalia points out more than once that this “new” evidence is not really “new” at all and has been rejected on more than one occasion. He also argues about the actual jurisdiction and authority of a habeus court in this circumstance as well as the validity of an argument of “actual” innocence (no doubt most everyone would argue that they are “actually innocent.”) One may legitimately disagree with Scalia’s ACTUAL opinion and reasoning (as several justices did), but this caricature of his argument does no one any real good. Although I’m suspect it makes liberals feel morally and intellectually superior for a moment.
August 18th, 2009 at 6:15 pmREAD THE ACTUAL OPINION:
http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-1443Scalia.pdf
August 18th, 2009 at 6:17 pmWhy didn’t DEFERRMENT DICKless Cheney shoot him when they went caged and trapped duck hunting in Louisana?
August 18th, 2009 at 6:35 pmMikeWF says:
This piece is a typical liberal hit-job. Remarkable that the author linked to Scalia’s actual opinion – where it is obvious that the author has ridiculously caricatured Scalia’s reasoning to make it appear as if he doesn’t give a whit if innocent people are fried. Scalia points out more than once that this “new” evidence is not really “new” at all and has been rejected on more than one occasion.
MikeWF says:
READ THE ACTUAL OPINION:
http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-1443Scalia.pdf
Hey, Mike: after you read the opinion explain the legal basis of even hearing the Bush v. Gore case.
August 18th, 2009 at 6:41 pmI think we need a Wise Latina rather than a Afr-Am Dope or a
Italian goombah on the bench.
“One Scalia jurist to another”
Gee, If they were innocent they wouldn’t be charged with crimes and here in court, eh?
Does Scalia have any constitutional brain waves toward ” innocent until Proven guilty?”
And that the justice system is operated by imperfect human beings that can allow for injustice? And appeals are for exactly to attain justice?
I wonder if it is about justice for Scalia or his perfect opinion of himself that guides him?
August 18th, 2009 at 6:42 pmThe various posters portraying Thomas as a dittohead of Scalia are wrong. They almost always agree because they make all their decisions based on the Medieval Roman Catholic concept of Natural Law as stated by St. Thomas Aquinas. If the Aquinas were here today he might say they are perverting his ideas, but that’s another subject. The basic idea is that you look at the world, see how God has made things work, and that’s what is permitted. That establishes the Law of God which you can apply to other similar situations. You see lots of heterosexuals, women have vaginas and produce babies, so gays are not allowed. The fallacies and shortcomings of this way of thinking are obvious, at least to most modern thinkers. But not to these guys. This is where the “empathy” thing Obama once touted for judges comes in. Of course Sotomayor had to pretend she was a legal computer of some kind in order to be confirmed in the current political (defined by Rethugs, even though they lost) climate. All Supreme Court decisions are a combination of looking at the logic of the law and precedence plus an understanding of moral values applied to the real world. You know, “empathy”.
August 18th, 2009 at 8:57 pmMaybe he was out hunting with Cheney and got a shot in the head… or the heart. Or maybe he was just joking. Or both.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:03 pmSounds like he is a guinea pig to wreck any justice or fairness not in accord with strict constuctionist principles. I think one of the strictest interpretations of the constitution is deciding on the basis of real justice, not precedent that any mobster or unshaven twisted mind can pervert to his liking, like he does. His own stinking pigheadedness and mean spirited views will come back on his head, like the evil on Nero who murdered the martyrs, and the rest of the mob their compatriots. He will probably be judged guilty on a technicality when he is plainly innocent. Sic Semper Tyrannus
August 18th, 2009 at 9:26 pmDoes anyone have any questions as to why I call them all ‘Repulsivicans’? The Democrypts are not any better, they see a man that is in a Prison, wrongly convicted and he remains in that Prison. Why can’t they instead of passing the buck, release him with the States option to retry him?
These two in the minority can get in a Taxi and go visit duh man in the White House and demand he immediately release him one way or the other, many options for the innocent, unduely tried man to get his liberty BACK NOW.
He may be a ‘Co-Conspirator’ in the original crime, but he was not tried for that.
When they stick to “procedures” in the case of a clear unfair trial when so many “Witnesses” have recanted and especially when they claim “Police coercion to convict” are made by two of them.
The Constitution does have this to say when you try to find guilt. It only takes two people on oath or affirmation to convict a man of high crimes or treason, so why not two to free the innocent, or those that faced an unfair trial.
Why do people take the “government” (whatever that is and means) position over the collective liberty of the people when there may be a political balancing game going on? Government is a collection of parasites developing empires to lord over.
I’m sick of hearing about innocent people laying in wait one second longer stuck in some Prison, while someone processes some paper for ‘permission’ to release them, what are telephones for. Liberty over procedure, or you’re all dead in the head.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:26 pmP.S. Stugotts et a cafone
August 18th, 2009 at 9:27 pmTo finnsih my thought for “When they stick to “procedures” in the case of a clear unfair trial “,
they are acting as robots for an organized criminal money machine to keep people in the (IN)justice system.
Does anyone remember the idea of “it is better that ten guilty go free that not one innocent suffer injustice of a wrongful conviction“?
August 18th, 2009 at 9:31 pmMy apologies for my comment. Perhaps the Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction to overturn a death sentence. That’s why a governor or perhaps a President has been delegated the right to commute a sentence. My knee jerk reaction was cute but not thoughtful. On the other hand, some of the other things Scalia has said does not indicate wisdom or good sense.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:34 pmIsn’t what death penalty is all about ? Executing the poor, the mentally disturbed and last but not least the innocent ?
August 18th, 2009 at 9:54 pmWow…just wow.
August 18th, 2009 at 10:44 pmemjayay says:
——————————————————————————–
The various posters portraying Thomas as a dittohead of Scalia are wrong. They almost always agree because they make all their decisions based on the Medieval Roman Catholic concept of Natural Law as stated by St. Thomas Aquinas. If the Aquinas were here today he might say they are perverting his ideas, but that’s another subject. The basic idea is that you look at the world, see how God has made things work, and that’s what is permitted. That establishes the Law of God which you can apply to other similar situations. You see lots of heterosexuals, women have vaginas and produce babies, so gays are not allowed. The fallacies and shortcomings of this way of thinking are obvious, at least to most modern thinkers. But not to these guys. This is where the “empathy” thing Obama once touted for judges comes in. Of course Sotomayor had to pretend she was a legal computer of some kind in order to be confirmed in the current political (defined by Rethugs, even though they lost) climate. All Supreme Court decisions are a combination of looking at the logic of the law and precedence plus an understanding of moral values applied to the real world. You know, “empathy”.
OK and NOW I WILL SAY THIS:
This is the 21st Century, and women don’t want to be barefoot and pregnant and depend on some man to take care of them for the rest of their lives. Oh, by the way women were always considered property WHICH MEANS THE MAN CAN THROW HIS WIFE ON THE STREET WHENEVER HE WISHES.
The Republicans always keep crying about keeping a fetus alive, yet have no problem executing innocents.
You need a reality check.. This is the 21st century.
We like to date. We like to work jobs that are not too taxing on our physical and mental abilities. We want to get paid so that we can enjoy economic freedom, and we want to go places, etc, etc.
We like to watch TV, and go to parties, etc.
If the Conservatives have their way, we would be living in the woods because Sears, etc wouldn’t pay us enough for rent. We would be working 16 hours a day and make just enough money to pay for the bare necessities.
That is the way to live according to the letter of the bigble. Doesn’t the bible say that we eat by the sweat of our brow?
So, lets get rid of all unions, export all jobs that women can do, so that we women have to pair up with a man.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:25 pmIsn’t there something in the Constitution about Life,Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness??? Seems like that would make it unconstitutional. But this is what happens when you let conservatives run the government. Nothing short of communism, the Taliban, or Hitler could be worse than America run by the Republicans.
Scalia seems to have become as screwy as the rest of the conservatives with the election of our first openly black president. We have been stuck with them since Reagan and America has just gotten warped! Even Clinton could not fix us because he had a Republican Congress hamstringing him.
I remember this case. This man was convicted of killing a cop in Savannah Georgia. The police and many white folks were almost to the point of rioting so they had to get a scapegoat fast. Troy Davis was their victim to quell it. Even the guy thought to be the Missing and Murdered Children killer, Wayne Williams, did not get it! Dr. Martin Luther King’s family got the killer of his mother off of death row! You just about have to be a mass murderer in Georgia to get the death penalty.
Fulton County (Atlanta) gave the first death penalty in my memory (lived in Atlanta for 30 years) recently and that was for a guy who killed a judge and a bailiff in the courtroom after he grabbed the gun of the officer guarding him and shot her. He was already on trial for rape.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:28 pmI elected Obama, and I will do whatever part to ensure people like him are in our government because I refuse to live the regimented lifestyle the Republicans want us to live.
I also elected Obama because he doesn’t “stick to procedure”.
In this upside down world where bankruptcy laws apply to ordinary citizens who went bankrupt paying their medical bills, and a recessiion like the 1930s, we need somebody who thinks outside the box.
Today’s legal problems are not the same as the legal problems of the 17th century. We need US Supreme Court justices who think outside the box.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:33 pmI also elected Obama, voted Democrat all my life, and always will vote Democrat because I refuse to live out in the woods in a shack that I built with my bare hands, and work 16 hours a day without being able to afford anything beyond the bare necessities just because the bible says you eat by the sweat of your brow.
Just wait until your job gets exported; you will live out in the woods with all the rest of people who don’t get paid a cost of living wage.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:40 pmThe Republicans will have all of us living off of the land, and growing and hunting our own food. The growing and hunting of our food would have to take place on Sundays, the only day we have off.
Water companies would form monopolys, and do monopolistic practices where the average person can’t afford running water anyway. So, we will be back to boiling huge buckets of water over a fire in order to cook, and do our laundry.
So in a nutshell, we would be washing our own clothes with our bare hands, hunting our food, growing our food, all during our spare time because we spend 12-16 hours a day working.
The bible says you eat by the sweat of your brow right?
Well, at the rate jobs are being exported, and with the crooked rent practices, and with the erosion of workers’ protection laws, we WILL be living the peasant lifestyle I described.
Workers’ protection laws don’t mean squat if there is no enforcement.
How many of you people on this forum, if you were $60,000 in student loan debt, and you had a brand new job that if you stay at the job for more than a year, the loan can be all paid off, you can pay your rent, etc, etc, would Unionize, knowing that management can ship your job to China with the press of a Blackberry?
Would you have the courage to Unionize? Or, would you be glad you have a job?
Decide the answer, and we will see how strong workers protection laws are.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:46 pmAnd Scalia was the kind of justice Bush liked. It is so easy to see why this country is as close to being a police state as we’ve ever been. This is the kind of people most right wingers want to inhabit our courts.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:50 pmIt is very easy to take a word or a sentence and take it out of context and make it sound like something else. If one takes the time to read Justice Antonin Scalia’s full statement on this he was discussing several important points. Part of what he was saying was that this case had been revisited in lower courts for the past ten years and none of them believed the “new” evidence would change the outcome of a trial. He was also pointing out that under our laws the Supreme Court’s job was not to overturn every conviction, especially after all the lower courts had ruled on it. The high court’s job is to insure that procedures were followed and that the application of law was followed.
Some think it is the job of the High Court to change the law. These are the ones who believe in “activist” judges who, if they don’t like the laws that have been legally passed, decide on their own to change them.
Now we have real danger! A small group of people, NOT elected by “the people”, in power for the rest of their life answering to no one should not be allowed to change the law to suit what they think. If a law is wrong and violates the constitution the court can challenge that law and have the congress rework it. Same for States. Many times our high court has sent matters back to the state to have laws changed, rewritten, etc.
This particular case was not about that, it was about one man who claimed to be innocent. He had spent ten years working through the lower courts trying to convince them that they should overturn his conviction. None of the lower courts agreed after years spent on this case reviewing the “new” evidence. Justice Scalia’s point was, it was not the job of the high court to say the man was innocent or not. That job rested with the lower courts. If they followed the rules and had fairly evaluated the case then that was the end of it, all legal procedures had been fairly followed. End of case. By-the-way, go visit any prison and you will soon learn that all those poor people were wrongly convicted and did nothing wrong. Surely there are innocent people wrongly convicted, but they are a small minority.
I am a centralist. I try to see both sides. Some on the Left are so fast to blast any Republican. Some on the Right are just as fast to blast any Democrat. Both sides need to get past this senseless name calling and “profiling” and start working together to find middle ground. Many of us are just sick and tired of this constant battle of “us” against “them”. Both sides have lost sight of what this country was all about. Our founding fathers wanted lively discussion and debate. They wanted to leave us a government that works for the people.
If they could see us now they would be very sad about where we have gone. We are fast becoming a country of sniveling cry babies on both sides, who find it impossible to consider any views but our own. Too many don’t bother to get the real facts, they just pick up on sound bites and let someone else do their thinking for them.
Go back and read the entire transcript of what the judge said and try to remove your personal bias from what you think. I sadly doubt that many can actually do that.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:57 pmThis Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.
This statement leaves so much room for abuse of power that a castle can fit through it.
Somebody can read it to mean that even if a habeaus court was presented with evidence of innocence, such as DNA belonging to the real killer, with a home video, dug up from the closet showing the defendant at a thanksgiving party, the innocent defendant can technically be denied a chance to be heard.
August 19th, 2009 at 12:02 amTo all the nutcases out there who think that the SCOTUS should role over and let an innocent human being be executed:
1. “nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” – Eight amendment. If it isn’t cruel and unusual to execute an innocent that nothing is cruel and unusual.
2. Interesting how all the right wing crzies are sooooo sooo upset about abortion and how it’s murder and want it banned. But they do not want a banning on innocent people being put to death when new evidence comes out later and their only hope of getting heard is from the federal judiciary. So killing fetuses – that’s murder, killing innocent adults – that justice.
3. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…..” Ok well forgive me for being cavalier but how about that among these rights are the right for a person to stay alive and not be punished for a crime they did not commit no matter how long after the trial that new evidence comes out that proves the person’s innocence.
4. The fact that any judge would allow someone to be executed despite being satisfied that they are innocent shows that we have truly evil people on the bench.
August 19th, 2009 at 12:39 amFoolsRushL_andHannity_In sez:
“Hey, Mike: after you read the opinion explain the legal basis of even hearing the Bush v. Gore case.I think we need a Wise Latina rather than a Afr-Am Dope or a
Italian goombah on the bench.”
Typical liberal response – can’t deal with the facts, so take a cheap unrelated shot to try to score a point. Not very impressive, “fool.” Apples and oranges.
August 19th, 2009 at 12:45 amYou said it Mel23 on post 197.
They rant and rave over an unborn, but they figure “let god sort out our mistakes” when they kill an obviously innocent man.
But the problem comes up, the prosecution and the police violated his right to a fair trial and in my opinion have committed far more serious crimes that should see a death penalty also. To knowingly work to frame an innocent man to quell a raging public about your lack of policing skills to actually catch and try the right criminal.
They knew he was innocent going into his trial.
August 19th, 2009 at 2:44 amLets assume that the poster who told us to read the whole opinion is telling the truth; Scalia never said the Constitution does not forbid executing innocents, and that it was taken out of context. Maybe it was, and that is how I’m going to approach this.
The dissent is still faulty because the founding fathers realized that men, not saints/angels are in high positions. If saints were in high positions, I would not be writing this post.
Scalia may very well have been referring to evidence that Davis already presented, but was rejected by previous courts. I read case too, and the opinon by Stevens says that Scalia assumes Davis was already guilty.
Number 2, the statement leaves the green light for abuse of power. In my personal opinion, it encourages laziness. For instance, law enforcement plagued by budget cuts, etc might not have incentive to follow every possible lead and eliminate every possible suspect.
A district attorney who has ambitions for Governor and Congress will probably care less if law enforcement gives him the wrong guy. For instance, the corrupt district attorney would never have to worry about his conviction being overturned because the law of the land just said that there is nothing unconstitutional about executing someone who was given a fair trial, but later on presented a habus coupus court with evidence of innocence.
Nowhere in the dissent does Scalia define what evidence of innocence is, or what type of evidence of innocence is convincing, and what type is not convincing.
So, even if the Habus corpus court was presented with blood on the weapon and at the crime scene belonging to another suspect, the dissent, if allowed to stand, under a corrupt system will leave the innocent person no legal recourse.
Thus, law enforcement plagued with budget cuts and a corrupt district attorney will never have to worry about their incompetence being exposed, knowing that not even blood from another suspect can save an already convicted defendant.
Because the dissent never defines exactly what evidence of innocence is credible, such as blood from another suspect, and what evidence of innocence is cognizable, such as the defendant’s mother who says he was home at the time of the crime.
August 19th, 2009 at 5:04 amThe poster who told us to read the actual opinion said that Scalia was referring to evidence that has already been rejected.
I disagree with the poster too.
That is the way the system works. If you lose your case in one court, you have the option to try many different courts until you find one that agrees with you. That is the way our system works.
If Scalia’s dissent stands, and is correct, than the defendant better hope that his lawyer works on the case for 12 hours for every hour he is in the court room, because the defendant would get only 1 chance to have his evidence of innocence presented properly.
Because if the evidence of innocence is rejected the 1st time around, than the dissent would allow for the US Supreme Court to refuse to hear the case altogether, even if there was blood from another suspect on a weapon and at the crime scene.
Once again, the dissent says there is nothing unconstitutional about executing a defendant who had a fair trial and later on, presented evidence of innocence to a higher court.
The dissent does not define which evidence of innocence is credible, and which is not.
And the dissent says that the defendant only has 1 chance to present his evidence, no matter how good.
August 19th, 2009 at 5:13 amIran has Sharia law. America has Scalia law.
August 19th, 2009 at 7:42 amAt least the three or four people that have admitted to reading the “actual” dissent have offered informed opinions to this thread, both for and against. 99% of the other commentary has been contributed by individuals who apparently only have time to react and not to reflect. The full written dissent is far less crazy than the the crowd reaction would deem it.
August 19th, 2009 at 10:08 amAfter reading Justice Scalia’s dissent, my opinion: Common sense, if not morality, dictates the state not execute an innocent. In the Davis case, this holds where reasonable people in light of new evidence could have reached a different conclusion.
August 19th, 2009 at 12:46 pmI feel as though you are all taking this extremely wrong. Regardless of the “Declaration of Independence”, the Constitution, nor law provides for freeing of a man later found innocent. This is not an opportunity to hate a man you already hate.
This is an opportunity to write your congressman and get a law written that supports the right to liberty expressed in the non-legal DoI document.
Scalia is correct by law. And being a non-activist, he makes decisions by law. So how do you fix that? WRITE LAW!
Don’t through punches aimlessly, use your keyboard to write your reps!
August 19th, 2009 at 4:26 pmLet me correct my previous statement that Scalia is a non-activist in all cases. Of course we know this to not be true.
I simply mean in general and in his own words. Except when he wants to be an activists. This is not activist on his part.
August 19th, 2009 at 4:28 pmSomebody needs to tell Scalia that his forked tail and horns are showing, not to mention the entire government!!!!!!
August 19th, 2009 at 6:43 pmtest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms45EzMR0f8
August 20th, 2009 at 5:53 pm1.> It’s unfortunate the oldest comment is shown at the top, “first.” Many people will only read a few at the top.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:46 am2.> Many of the comments slam Scalia as a Republican. Party Politics has no place and has cheated us all. Never imagine the elitists at the top actually care or follow a Party, it’s at best a tool. And it’s why it’s bad to have crap presidents get to appoint folks, let alone for life.
3.> WHEN PEOPLE LEARN/REMEMBER THEIR JURY ABILITY TO NULLIFY A JUDGE, IN A JURY TRIAL, JUDGES WILL BE PUT IN THEIR PROPER PLACES. In a jury trial, the jury decide FACTS AND LAW; they can throw out anything they don’t like; they can hold a person innocent if they like his tie; they can ignore the law because they think it applies poorly to his case. “Jury Nullification” means the jury overrides the judge referee. THE REASON FOR Jury Nullification WAS TO ENSURE ANY PROBABLE DOUBT ABOUT A TRIAL SHOULD LEAVE THE DEFENDANT INNOCENT. (I think Jefferson[?] said something like better that the occasional guilty guy goes free than an innocent man be convicted.) We NEED folks to get educated and do their duty by being on a jury; quit trying to get out of it, lazy!
4.> Flattering photo looks smug or something. Who picked it?
5.> Strong new evidence can reopen a trial, e.g., DNA is now used to get folks out.
6.> Scalia merely pointed out the system doesn’t trigger an automatic change without folks going over the issues. Lawyers (& media & public opinion to their “reps”) trigger appeals.
How do these people ever get appointed……Do they fall victim to the fact that power corrupts……or are just heartless, cruel SOB’s to start with. I never understood how we let the outdated supreme court “appointed for life standard” stay as it is. We should change it so that they get elected by the people for terms. When you don’t belong there, you don’t belong, give us a chance to get rid of them when this happens.
August 23rd, 2009 at 12:02 amThat is done on purpose. The first glance, emotionally charged posts stay at the top for maximum effect; while those which use thoughtful dissonance, after actually reading the decision are relegated to the bottom of the heap.
How many of those who have posted to this story have actually read the decision? How many here have actually figured out that he was writing his dissent with an eye to the actual tenets of the law?
The people who run this site post one — COUNT ‘EM — one simple, single paragraph from the dissent and hope that everyone who comes here will ignore the rest; or be too ignorant to actually read the dissent.
I say to those who have posted here to read the dissent, do the actual legwork, and make an informed decision based upon that research.
I suggest you start here: http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-1443Scalia.pdf
Those who want you to take the single paragraph as the whole are the same ones who will ask you “Who are you going to believe; me or your lying eyes?”
August 23rd, 2009 at 12:55 amScalia is probably saying that the matter should be handled at the state or local level and not the federal govn’t. That’s what he means by recognized by the Constitution, but he did write that it’s an open issue. The issue is probably State vs Federal jurisdiction in his mind. He should have worded himself differently.
The Federal govn’t didn’t even have jursisdiction over murder cases until I think the mid 1960’s.
August 23rd, 2009 at 1:09 pmThe real issue is whether individual states are capable of providing due process. Did the state of Georgia fail to provide due process? Due process has been followed. A Georgia court found him guilty and his appeals were denied. Perhaps there should be some better process for review, but if you are proposing the Supreme Court play this part, you are proposing an entirely new responsibility.
Also, I agree that the court system should always be open to claims of factual innocence, my only point is that heretofore that isn’t how the system has worked.
August 23rd, 2009 at 2:06 pm