[Balboa]

A judge who is finally able to separate his religious beliefs from his court rulings!!

Come on guys... isn't this what you've always wanted? :lol:

[Mark K]

wabbiteer, on Aug 19 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

Mark K, on Aug 19 2009, 09:15 AM, said:

I feel pretty confident that had Scalia and Thomas wouldn't have
voted that way if there were indeed a chance that thier votes
would result in the death of Davis. It was just political. They
mearly wished to contribute to the meme that conservatives not
namby pamby wimps, and will protect us from harm.

I don't share your confidence.

Scalia is an evil slimeball who would happily sacrifice an innocent man on the altar of his dogma.

I sincerely hope there is a god in heaven so Scalia will have a very unhappy eternity.

But for now it would be nice if the Pope would excommunicate him.

Im basing it on Scalia's well established record of brilliant jackassishness.....

[Mark K]

mr_fabulous, on Aug 19 2009, 10:25 AM, said:

Mark K, on Aug 19 2009, 04:15 PM, said:

Balboa, on Aug 19 2009, 05:57 AM, said:

The question is... has the court ever held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent?

According to the NY Times, they have not NYTimes

That said, I am in no way a legal beagle, but it seems to me that law, procedure and protocol go both ways. Some stupid legal technicality could just as easily allow a guilty man to go free as it could allow an innocent man to be found guilty.

I have always held the utmost respect for Scalia and MOST of his rulings. I concede that legal protocol and procedure is the element of law that if find frustrating and distasteful, so I do find this ruling a bit troubling.

If this man is indeed innocent, then all legal avenues should be exhausted to help him win his innocence. Of course, you all know the saying "there are no guilty men in prison"

I feel pretty confident that had Scalia and Thomas wouldn't have
voted that way if there were indeed a chance that thier votes
would result in the death of Davis. It was just political. They
mearly wished to contribute to the meme that conservatives not
namby pamby wimps, and will protect us from harm.

Based on his alignment of opinions, I'm beginning to think Clarence Thomas asks Antonin Scalia when he sould take go and take a leak. Thomas brings nothing to the Supreme Court intellectual dynamic.

Nevertheless, I don't think we can use Clarences stated distaste for
high-tech lynchings against him here. This was a highly technical one.

[Jeff B's Slutty friend]

Hrothgar, on Aug 19 2009, 08:51 AM, said:

Final Verdict: This is a typical BG trolling excursion to incite the masses to riot against the evil ruling class.

Hroth

Helloooo. duh!

[Mark K]

Jeff B, on Aug 19 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

Hrothgar, on Aug 19 2009, 08:51 AM, said:

Final Verdict: This is a typical BG trolling excursion to incite the masses to riot against the evil ruling class.

Hroth

Helloooo. duh!

No. Not that that's wrong, but this is a telling event.

Check out all the people who are running around saying
the guy is innocent, including FBI guys and prosecuters,
and marvel at the states rational for not staying the execution.

The papers were not filed exactly right. I suppose there were
probably some T's uncrossed too. The death penalty as a
political football on display. Some people think killing Mr. Davis
was justified if it pandered to their political base.

The death penalty. I certainly agree some people deserve
to die, but cases like this show why we can't trust the courts with
it.

[wabbiteer]

Mark K, on Aug 19 2009, 01:30 PM, said:

Jeff B, on Aug 19 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

Hrothgar, on Aug 19 2009, 08:51 AM, said:

Final Verdict: This is a typical BG trolling excursion to incite the masses to riot against the evil ruling class.

Hroth

Helloooo. duh!

No. Not that that's wrong, but this is a telling event.

Check out all the people who are running around saying
the guy is innocent, including FBI guys and prosecuters,
and marvel at the states rational for not staying the execution.

The papers were not filed exactly right. I suppose there were
probably some T's uncrossed too. The death penalty as a
political football on display. Some people think killing Mr. Davis
was justified if it pandered to their political base.

The death penalty. I certainly agree some people deserve
to die, but cases like this show why we can't trust the courts with
it.

Why bother.

Jeff will never be able to control his kneejerk reaction to any BG posts.

[Dog]

Mark K, on Aug 19 2009, 01:30 PM, said:

Jeff B, on Aug 19 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

Hrothgar, on Aug 19 2009, 08:51 AM, said:

Final Verdict: This is a typical BG trolling excursion to incite the masses to riot against the evil ruling class.

Hroth

Helloooo. duh!

No. Not that that's wrong, but this is a telling event.

Check out all the people who are running around saying
the guy is innocent, including FBI guys and prosecuters,
and marvel at the states rational for not staying the execution.

The papers were not filed exactly right. I suppose there were
probably some T's uncrossed too. The death penalty as a
political football on display. Some people think killing Mr. Davis
was justified if it pandered to their political base.

The death penalty. I certainly agree some people deserve
to die, but cases like this show why we can't trust the courts with
it.

Who?

[Sol Rosenberg]

He's making a factual statement about the law, is he not? Either the Court has held that or it hasn't. I don't see the big deal.

[Mark K]

Dog, on Aug 19 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

Mark K, on Aug 19 2009, 01:30 PM, said:

Jeff B, on Aug 19 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

Hrothgar, on Aug 19 2009, 08:51 AM, said:

Final Verdict: This is a typical BG trolling excursion to incite the masses to riot against the evil ruling class.

Hroth

Helloooo. duh!

No. Not that that's wrong, but this is a telling event.

Check out all the people who are running around saying
the guy is innocent, including FBI guys and prosecuters,
and marvel at the states rational for not staying the execution.

The papers were not filed exactly right. I suppose there were
probably some T's uncrossed too. The death penalty as a
political football on display. Some people think killing Mr. Davis
was justified if it pandered to their political base.

The death penalty. I certainly agree some people deserve
to die, but cases like this show why we can't trust the courts with
it.

Who?

The people who refused to stay an obvious miscarraige
of justice.

[Balboa]

If I might interject some thoughts into this discussion.

From a legal perspective... would it matter if Scalia's ruling had been the same for someone appealing the same crime who was sentenced to lesser punishment (life imprisonment)?

[Mark K]

Balboa, on Aug 19 2009, 01:47 PM, said:

If I might interject some thoughts into this discussion.

From a legal perspective... would it matter if Scalia's ruling had been the same for someone appealing the same crime who was sentenced to lesser punishment (life imprisonment)?

That's a question not a thought, but no, legally. But practically
I'm reasonably certain Mr. Davis would find the time for further consideration
of his conviction quite beneficial.

[wabbiteer]

Sol Rosenberg, on Aug 19 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

He's making a factual statement about the law, is he not? Either the Court has held that or it hasn't. I don't see the big deal.

With all due respect to someone in the profession, but he's not just "making a factual statement about the law." He made that statement in his dissent saying that there was no need to review evidence in a very fishy case.

You don't think that a Supreme Court judge saying...
“This court has never held,” Justice Scalia wrote, “that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”
...has the effect of undermining confidence in the American legal system?

It's OK to knowingly execute an innocent person because we followed procedure? And the Supreme Court shouldn't order a review of the evidence because... why? Because Scalia (that twit) says that the Constitution doesn't explicitly say that we can't execute an innocent man?

I'm not cool with that. Americans need to have confidence in our legal system. If we don't have confidence in our legal system -- and a Supreme Court justice himself gives us reason to doubt our system of justice -- then what's keeping us from resorting to vigilantism?

[Sol Rosenberg]

wabbiteer, on Aug 19 2009, 05:01 PM, said:

Sol Rosenberg, on Aug 19 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

He's making a factual statement about the law, is he not? Either the Court has held that or it hasn't. I don't see the big deal.

With all due respect to someone in the profession, but he's not just "making a factual statement about the law." He made that statement in his dissent saying that there was no need to review evidence in a very fishy case.

You don't think that a Supreme Court judge saying...
“This court has never held,” Justice Scalia wrote, “that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”
...has the effect of undermining confidence in the American legal system?

It's OK to knowingly execute an innocent person because we followed procedure? And the Supreme Court shouldn't order a review of the evidence because... why? Because Scalia (that twit) says that the Constitution doesn't explicitly say that we can't execute an innocent man?

I'm not cool with that. Americans need to have confidence in our legal system. If we don't have confidence in our legal system -- and a Supreme Court justice himself gives us reason to doubt our system of justice -- then what's keeping us from resorting to vigilantism?

But still, it's his interpretation of what the law is. I didn't say it wasn't insane. There are plenty of Judges that would recognize that the lack of such a holding is quite possibly due to the fact that it shouldn't require a trip to the US Supreme Court for something so basic. Would Scalia be among those? Apparently not.

I just don't get surprised by anything Scalia does or says. If he stopped short while powerwalking and broke Thomas' nose, THAT would surprise me. But if he wrote an opinion pointing out that there has never been a case in the history of the US Supreme Court that held that he was prohibited attaching electrodes to the balls of his paperboy, and zapping the piss out of him (literally) for throwing the newspaper under his car, it wouldn't surprise me in the least. But I'm guessing it would be a correct statement of the law. Meaningless, but correct.

[wabbiteer]

Sol Rosenberg, on Aug 19 2009, 02:15 PM, said:

wabbiteer, on Aug 19 2009, 05:01 PM, said:

Sol Rosenberg, on Aug 19 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

He's making a factual statement about the law, is he not? Either the Court has held that or it hasn't. I don't see the big deal.

With all due respect to someone in the profession, but he's not just "making a factual statement about the law." He made that statement in his dissent saying that there was no need to review evidence in a very fishy case.

You don't think that a Supreme Court judge saying...
“This court has never held,” Justice Scalia wrote, “that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”
...has the effect of undermining confidence in the American legal system?

It's OK to knowingly execute an innocent person because we followed procedure? And the Supreme Court shouldn't order a review of the evidence because... why? Because Scalia (that twit) says that the Constitution doesn't explicitly say that we can't execute an innocent man?

I'm not cool with that. Americans need to have confidence in our legal system. If we don't have confidence in our legal system -- and a Supreme Court justice himself gives us reason to doubt our system of justice -- then what's keeping us from resorting to vigilantism?

But still, it's his interpretation of what the law is. I didn't say it wasn't insane. There are plenty of Judges that would recognize that the lack of such a holding is quite possibly due to the fact that it shouldn't require a trip to the US Supreme Court for something so basic. Would Scalia be among those? Apparently not.

I just don't get surprised by anything Scalia does or says. If he stopped short while powerwalking and broke Thomas' nose, THAT would surprise me. But if he wrote an opinion pointing out that there has never been a case in the history of the US Supreme Court that held that he was prohibited attaching electrodes to the balls of his paperboy, and zapping the piss out of him (literally) for throwing the newspaper under his car, it wouldn't surprise me in the least. But I'm guessing it would be a correct statement of the law. Meaningless, but correct.

I was thinking more along the lines of:

It's OK for me to waltz into the Supreme Court building and give Scalia a boot in the nuts because the Constitution doesn't explicitly say that I can't.

[Bull Gator]

wabbiteer, on Aug 19 2009, 08:33 PM, said:

Mark K, on Aug 19 2009, 01:30 PM, said:

Jeff B, on Aug 19 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

Hrothgar, on Aug 19 2009, 08:51 AM, said:

Final Verdict: This is a typical BG trolling excursion to incite the masses to riot against the evil ruling class.

Hroth

Helloooo. duh!

No. Not that that's wrong, but this is a telling event.

Check out all the people who are running around saying
the guy is innocent, including FBI guys and prosecuters,
and marvel at the states rational for not staying the execution.

The papers were not filed exactly right. I suppose there were
probably some T's uncrossed too. The death penalty as a
political football on display. Some people think killing Mr. Davis
was justified if it pandered to their political base.

The death penalty. I certainly agree some people deserve
to die, but cases like this show why we can't trust the courts with
it.

Why bother.

Jeff will never be able to control his kneejerk reaction to any BG posts.

It's fun having that power over flyboy - kind of like SOL and Carly only jeffies marginally more lucid (except when he's talking footbal)

[Mark K]

Sol Rosenberg, on Aug 19 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

He's making a factual statement about the law, is he not? Either the Court has held that or it hasn't. I don't see the big deal.

I think I should be fair to the people in Georgia. If they could not
wash their hands of the stain of activist justice by passing
this to the Supreme Court they might have acted differently.

Tony and Clarence could wipe their hands on the robes of
the majority, so all is Right with the world....

[Sol Rosenberg]

reminds me of

[Hrothgar]

wabbiteer, on Aug 19 2009, 05:01 PM, said:

It's OK to knowingly execute an innocent person because we followed procedure? And the Supreme Court shouldn't order a review of the evidence because... why? Because Scalia (that twit) says that the Constitution doesn't explicitly say that we can't execute an innocent man?

I'm not cool with that. Americans need to have confidence in our legal system. If we don't have confidence in our legal system -- and a Supreme Court justice himself gives us reason to doubt our system of justice -- then what's keeping us from resorting to vigilantism?

Only two problems with this Wabbit--1. He's not innocent. He was found guilty in a court of law. 2. American's also need confidence that they are safe from assholes with guns and they should expect the legal system to punish those who break the law and not continue to waste everyone's time on reviewing every case where there may or may not be 'new evidence' that may or may not change the outcome of the verdict.

Hroth

[d'ranger]

So what does a DA and an MD have in common?

drum roll............................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
................................................ In Texas they both get to bury their mistakes.

thank you, don't forget to tip your server.

[Spatial Ed]

Hrothgar, on Aug 20 2009, 07:19 AM, said:

Only two problems with this Wabbit--1. He's not innocent. He was found guilty in a court of law. 2. American's also need confidence that they are safe from assholes with guns and they should expect the legal system to punish those who break the law and not continue to waste everyone's time on reviewing every case where there may or may not be 'new evidence' that may or may not change the outcome of the verdict.

Hroth

So you are advocating abolishing the entire appeal process. Once a verdict has been entered, that's it. Game over man. Get over it. Move on.
Can you name a country that does just that? I can.

[wabbiteer]

Hrothgar, on Aug 20 2009, 06:19 AM, said:

wabbiteer, on Aug 19 2009, 05:01 PM, said:

It's OK to knowingly execute an innocent person because we followed procedure? And the Supreme Court shouldn't order a review of the evidence because... why? Because Scalia (that twit) says that the Constitution doesn't explicitly say that we can't execute an innocent man?

I'm not cool with that. Americans need to have confidence in our legal system. If we don't have confidence in our legal system -- and a Supreme Court justice himself gives us reason to doubt our system of justice -- then what's keeping us from resorting to vigilantism?

Only two problems with this Wabbit--1. He's not innocent. He was found guilty in a court of law. 2. American's also need confidence that they are safe from assholes with guns and they should expect the legal system to punish those who break the law and not continue to waste everyone's time on reviewing every case where there may or may not be 'new evidence' that may or may not change the outcome of the verdict.

Hroth

Two problems with that:

1) Being found guilty does not necessarily mean that a person is not innocent.
2) The MAJORITY of the Supreme Court was satisfied of the strong possibility of this man's innocence to the extent that they ordered a review of the evidence in this case. Scalia and Thomas were the only dissenters.

If the Jury in Clear Lake finds Bismarck Dinius guilty, are you going to defend that decision?

[By the lee]

wabbiteer, on Aug 19 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

Mark K, on Aug 19 2009, 09:15 AM, said:

I feel pretty confident that had Scalia and Thomas wouldn't have
voted that way if there were indeed a chance that thier votes
would result in the death of Davis. It was just political. They
mearly wished to contribute to the meme that conservatives not
namby pamby wimps, and will protect us from harm.

I don't share your confidence.

Scalia is an evil slimeball who would happily sacrifice an innocent man on the altar of his dogma.

I sincerely hope there is a god in heaven so Scalia will have a very unhappy eternity.

But for now it would be nice if the Pope would excommunicate him.

+1!

[Tom Ray]

mr_fabulous, on Aug 19 2009, 01:25 PM, said:

Based on his alignment of opinions, I'm beginning to think Clarence Thomas asks Antonin Scalia when he sould take go and take a leak. Thomas brings nothing to the Supreme Court intellectual dynamic.

I disagree. Thomas was the only SC Justice who looked at the Raich case and concluded that maybe if we're busy deciding that homegrown cannabis plants for personal medical use are interstate commerce, we need to reconsider commerce clause jurisprudence. A major and significant contribution if you ask me.

Scalia sided with the left wing of the court in protecting federal power under the commerce clause in that case.

[By the lee]

Hrothgar said:

Only two problems with this Wabbit--1. He's not innocent. He was found guilty in a court of law

Guilty, sure, of breathing while black.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Weekend Edition August 21-23, 2009

American Justice is Not Blind, But it is Truly Sick!

By DAVE LINDORFF

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and Federal District Court Judge Fernando Gaitan of the Missouri Western District Court have at least two things in common: they are both appointees of President Ronald Reagan, and they both think it’s just fine for the US to execute innocent people. The same can be said for Judge C. Arlen Beam of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a recent dissent in a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling ordering a habeas hearing in federal court for South Carolina death row inmate Troy Anthony Davis, a man slated to die after being convicted for the murder of an off-duty Savannah police officer, Scalia wrote, “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.”

For his part, Judge Gaitan, in Missouri, had two shots at considering the case of Joseph Amrine, a death-row inmate slated to die for the killing of a fellow prisoner in a Missouri state prison. Amrine had been convicted of the knife slaying on the basis of the testimony of three alleged eyewitnesses—all of them fellow prisoners. When two of those witnesses later recanted (suggesting that it was the third witness who had actually been the killer), Judge Gaitan rejected the habeas appeal, arguing that the two recantations couldn’t be believed, because the third witness had not changed his testimony. Later, when the third witness also recanted, Amrine’s attorney brought the case back to Judge Gaitan, but this time, the Judge again rejected the appeal, claiming that none of the witnesses was credible “because they are all criminals.” (Which of course begs the question of why Amrine should have been convicted in the first place based upon the testimony of the same three witnesses.).

Amrine didn’t get any help from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is also apparently packed with Scalia-like vampires. A three-judge panel on that court, which included Reagan-appointee Judge Beam, as well as Clinton appointee Diane E Murphy and George H. W. Bush appointee Judge Morris Sheppard Arnold, unanimously upheld Judge Gaitan, declaring that even if the three recantations might suggest Amrine was innocent, he could not get a new hearing or trial because his attorneys should have been able to discover the evidence earlier through “due diligence.” The judges, in rejecting Amrine’s appeal, wrote that, “even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently,” an appellate court had to defer to the determination regarding credibility of recanting witnesses made by a lower court judge.

That is, procedural issues and rules trump facts, even in a death penalty case.

Happily for Troy Davis, a frighteningly narrow majority on the US Supreme Court disagreed with Justice Scalia’s view of the Constitution. Happily for Amrine, who is now a free man, the Missouri State Supreme Court disagreed with both Judge Gaitan and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals panel, concluding that "a showing of actual innocence acts as a 'gateway' that entitles the prisoner to review on the merits of the prisoner's otherwise defaulted constitutional claim."

Justice Scalia’s pinched view of the Constitution is that if it ain’t written down in the document, it doesn’t exist. So even though there is a clear outlawing in the Constitution against “cruel and unusual” punishment, he purports to be unable to see how that could be construed to include being executed for a crime you did not commit.

It should sicken every American that our judicial system could condone execution of people that even the judges themselves concede are likely or even certainly innocent, because of procedural rules and politically imposed deadlines and appeals limitations, such as those imposed by former President Bill Clinton’s Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, passed in 1995 in the hysteria following the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Federal Office Building.

I once had the grisly experience, back in 1995 in Xian China, of watching several doomed men being carted off by armed police in the back of a flat-bed truck for a date with a bullet to the back of the head. I remember thinking at the time what a monstrous and uncivilized act this was. The trials in China are in name only, with the verdict pre-ordained, and any appeals, if they happen, perfunctory.

Yet how different are things here in the US? There is the same bloodthirsty slathering for public execution by the ghouls on the right, the same quiescence among the broader population. There is, perhaps one difference, and that is the political pandering to the death-obsessed by politicians who should know better. Those Reagan-appointed judges—Scalia, Gaitan and Beam—and the many like them on federal and state benches across the country, were appointed precisely because they wanted to grease the skids to the execution chamber, and President Reagan, like Nixon before him and the Bushes after him, have made advocacy of state-sanctioned execution a lynch-pin of their campaign efforts. But President Clinton was no different. He cut short his campaign for president so he could rush home to Arkansas to sign the execution warrant for a mentally impaired man, and later, pushed through the EDP Act to make appeals of death-row inmates much more difficult.

President Obama is not much better. While he has not yet signed on to any efforts to make executions easier, neither has he acted, as president, to correct the current abysmal situation, which has seen many people spend years or even decades on death rows, often coming within days or hours or even minutes of execution before finally being found innocent, and which has surely led to many executions of innocent people over the years. Disturbingly, Obama has use the argument of “public vengeance” to justify the death penalty, writing in his memoir, that while he believes the death penalty "does little to deter crime," he nonetheless supports it for crimes "so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."

Surely Obama is smart enough to recognize that when a community is so enraged, that is precisely when the fairness of a trial becomes hardest to assure, and thus, when the chance of a wrongful conviction becomes the most likely. And yet he finds it safer to politically pander to those base instincts for vengeance.

There is no greater crime than the killing by the state of an innocent person, and yet, in America, such atrocities are not just happening, they are condoned by judges in the highest court of the land.

Dave Lindorff is a Philadelphia-based journalist. He is author of “Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal,” (Common Courage Press, 2003) and more recently of “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

http://www.counterpu...ff08212009.html

[Grrr...]

R Booth, on Aug 18 2009, 10:45 PM, said:

flaps15, on Aug 18 2009, 07:41 PM, said:

Dawg, on Aug 18 2009, 10:05 PM, said:

I personally do not believe that someone should be given the death penalty unless there is irrefutable DNA evidence.

Being pro death penalty and con Bull Gaytor. I hesitated to post this, but figured it's gonna pop up eventually. DNA Evidence can be fabricated

The shit that one can learn here is simply astounding........

To continue your education, there is also a way to detect all fabrications.

http://www.google.co...B2v3zoiwc35Bm1w