#1 2009-08-19 01:43:23
Minority Opinion by Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas 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. 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.
I love the smell of electrocuted in-nocents in the morning, it smells like a pseudo-free Republic.
Offline
#2 2009-08-19 03:38:26
In the minority opinion to Lawrence v. Texas, Scalia wrote:
The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are "immoral and unacceptable," the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. Bowers held that this was a legitimate state interest.
Scalia employs the same tortured logic that says that says gay marriage = 9/11.
I don't care what people say about Scalia being "brilliant," he's a fucking tool who mainly practiced administrative law before he was put on the Court.
Offline
#3 2009-08-19 05:41:18
Decadence wrote:
Minority Opinion by Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas 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. 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.
I love the smell of electrocuted in-nocents in the morning, it smells like a pseudo-free Republic.
Well, I hate to say it, because Scalia is a prick, but legally, he's right. If there was nothing wrong with the trial itself (suppressed evidence, incompetent council, etc.), then the person remains legally convicted of the crime, and so there would be nothing illegal about carrying out the sentence.. This would be an extremely unusual case, of course, and would bar things like finding new evidence, because that would be the kind of thing that would be used to mount an appeal. If you've already failed all your appeals, and incontrovertible proof of your innocence shows up, call the Governor, not the judge.
Now, would anybody actually let it go to the point that someone would be executed even though he has proven that he's innocent? Of course not.
Offline
#4 2009-08-19 11:36:04
I always laugh when I see Clarence Thomas' name crediting him for anything other than changing a coffee filter or maybe ordering a pizza.("Tony, you think we should get extra cheese?")
Offline
#5 2009-08-19 11:53:30
tojo2000 wrote:
Well, I hate to say it, because Scalia is a prick, but legally, he's right. If there was nothing wrong with the trial itself (suppressed evidence, incompetent council, etc.), then the person remains legally convicted of the crime, and so there would be nothing illegal about carrying out the sentence.. This would be an extremely unusual case, of course, and would bar things like finding new evidence, because that would be the kind of thing that would be used to mount an appeal. If you've already failed all your appeals, and incontrovertible proof of your innocence shows up, call the Governor, not the judge.
Now, would anybody actually let it go to the point that someone would be executed even though he has proven that he's innocent? Of course not.
Never underestimate ostriches like Scalia (and others) who would rather execute an innocent man than admit their system made a mistake. The court system, like in a lot of cases, is the only answer when the government doesn't have the guts to do something.
Offline
