Cheat Sheet
The Best In Brief
Scalia: No Mercy for Possibly Innocent
No empathy on the Supreme Court from Justice Antonin Scalia: “This court has never 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,” Justice Scalia wrote in a dissent from a Supreme Court decision ordering a Georgia court to review evidence in the case of death-row defendant Troy Davis. Seven of the witnesses from Davis’s 1989 trial have recanted and several others have fingered the prosecution’s main witness as the actual killer of the off-duty police officer whose death Davis was charged with. “The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, “clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing.”
Partner Sites: Expedia| Hotels| Hotwire| Urbanspoon| Vimeo
I am a conservative when it comes to the Supreme Court. But I just cannot believe what I just read. that says hey we know you are innocent but you have to die because it says so. Frankly this is shocking and would be a left wing goofball joke, but it is what he said. WOW.
It doesn't qualify as cruel and unusual punishment to execute innocent people? Maybe I misunderstand the words cruel and unusual.
Someone has misunderstood something and it wasn't you, Talmegeb, it this is really the position of anyone on our supreme court. It would go against the very meaning of the word: justice.
Genni2002: What does a conservative care about justice? If the guy is in prison, he is obviously guilty. If not of this crime, then some other one, equally vile.
Besides, Davis is Black. Gotta get rid of those people before they rape our women and take over the country!
This is what happens when you have activist judges on the Supreme Court.
Scalia has made statements like this before. The machine is more important than the facts or truth or people's lives. Bork had the same view, which is what stopped him.
These conservative jusdges are supposedly not "activist" judges because they think they read the founder's intent, like religious scholars reading the Talmud or Koran or New Testament; so, they claim they only care what the law says. But, it is a sickness that allows them to forget that there are people on the receiving end of their idea of "justice". The founders clearly did not act this way and did not want this kind of behavior. If new evidence comes to light, any modern or original definition of 'justice' says you have to look again.
Justice is blind (so impartial), but the system is naturally as flawed as the people that run it. If witnesses lied, it means that the system failed; it is time Scalia learned that.
In the meantime, Justice Clarence Thomas sits there like a huge toad, saying nothing until required to write an opinion. And showing the same total lack of remorse.
Thomas seems hypnotized by Scalia: he generally just votes however Scalia does. He is kind of a Scalia "mini-me"
What does "conservative when it comes to the Supreme Court" mean?
As an attorney I want to reassure Zero001 and others that it IS conservative for the Court to find that it is unconstitutional to execute a prisoner who is able to factually prove innocence. This is what the Constitution is about in its most basic form and the dissenters should be ashamed of themselves. They are following their own ideology (read: being activist judges) instead of reading the plain language of the text. How can one truly have the "due process" mentioned in the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment if precluded from showing innocence no matter where your case is procedurally? (In this case, the issue was raised on the writ of habeaus corpus and not a direct appeal of the conviction.) This is not about mercy. It is about due process. The Court ruled correctly.
This user is no longer registered.
It is fruitless to speculate about the merits of either Stevens or Scalias position from here at the recieving end of limited information. We haven't heard the arguments nor understand the applicable laws. The obvious remedy would be stays or pardons at the gubernatorial or federal level.
This user is no longer registered.
This user is no longer registered.
Alaric: The merits of the case are irrelevant. If a Supreme Court justice is willing to let innocent people die, there is something seriously wrong with our country.
I am not at all surprised by this statement. This comes from the man who said that torture "is not cruel or unusual punishment".
He's a bad person, with extreme narcissism.
A "Bully" as stated by someone who has known him for more than 30 years.
"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles . . . . He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia reportedly said. "Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" He then posed a series of questions to his fellow judges: "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer?"
"I don't think so," Scalia reportedly answered himself.
Yes, Alaric, all too often there is 'limited information' but a direct quote from Scalia clearly states his position.
In the old days of the Wild West, it was clearer: "Give him a fair trial and hang him in the morning."
I can't remember the French but it's like "The more things change ... "
For greater context go to the original NYT article and then go to the court opinions. Interesting read and gives context to " actual innocence " statement. Sounds as though this may be just a temporary stay for Mr. Davis who has never established innocence through several post trial procedures which have examined the exact claims he has brought to the Supreme Court. The court the case is being refered back to has no authority to grant relief. The majority opinion makes no claim as to Mr Davis guilt or innocence only that they want the claims examined yet again. The majority argument closes by proposing that somehow, someone could make it through the system to the Supreme Court with no scintilla of doubt as to their innocence. The majority in this opinion may be said to have no empathy for the family of the victim and the justice they are due.
This user is no longer registered.
These days the conservative position is "Hang him now and give him a fair trial in the morning."
This is the
Attitude of the
Conservatives on the Court.
It's what Obama wants to
Counter when he described empathy
As a criterion for his appointment.
It's hard to appreciate
How out of touch these people are.
The Supreme Court on Monday ordered a federal trial court in Georgia to consider the case of Troy Davis, who is on death row in state prison there for the 1989 murder of an off-duty police officer. The case has attracted international attention, and 27 former prosecutors and judges had filed a brief supporting Mr. Davis. It instructed the trial court to "receive testimony and make findings of fact" about whether new evidence clearly established Mr. Davis's innocence.Justice Scalia, in a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, said the hearing would be "a fool's errand," because Mr. Davis's factual claims were "a sure loser."He went on to say that the federal courts would be powerless to assist Mr. Davis even if he could categorically establish his innocence.
Bottom line, the evidence doesn't support his innocence and the Supremes can't overturn lower court's ruling. Geez people, read the evidence!
Well, squig, being that only 2 Justices (as far as I can tell) were on the dissent side, perhaps the 2 most conservative judges are wrong. Is that possible?
See one of Sarah Palin's last dirty deeds just before she retired. Really, bottom line?
jdkjdk,
apparently Roberts and Alito were not on the panel that heard the case.Don't know why, but perhaps this type of decision is only decided by 5 justices. research, research, research
Alaric
A case similar to this took place SC last session. Research, research, research.
cbeenthere,
JDK-JDK made a proposition that 2 conservative judges were on the majority. It was fairly easy, 2 clicks away, to find that only 5 justices were on the panel. As to why you should pipe in when you had no useful information to give is beyond me. The only remaining question on the narrow issue here is to why only 5 justices were on the panel, which is irrelevent to dismissing the notion that 2 conservative justices were in the majority.So have a cup of coffee and wake up.
I can pipe in wherever I want.
And aleric
There is a much bigger issue than your nitwit picking over how many justices. But you want someone to feed you your info. Just stay ignorant you are better off that way.
This user is no longer registered.
squiggy: Who cares about the case. I am concerned that any Supreme Court justice is willing to let any innocent person die.
(Would he have the same opinion about a white person? Good question.)
@Alar
I said 2 conservative judges were on the DISSENT side, not in the majority.
cbeenthere,
If you made any less sense I'd think you bumped your head. As to this case. I don't know and you don't know whether this man is innocent or guilty. There is a process established by law that determines dispensation of the case. That is called being a nation of laws and not of men. As imperfect as the legal system is it is what we have.there is a remedy for Mr. Davis provided by law. The governor can grant clemency or he can commute his sentence. Mr Obama can also pardon him if he so chooses.
Don't lecture me Aleric.
Clemency, commutation, or pardon is not right for this case! There is new evidence that should be heard by a court and a judicial decision made.
Read it again yourself, squiggy. "He went on to say that the federal courts would be powerless to assist Mr. Davis even if he could categorically establish his innocence." That is Scalia's OPINION. Other than his rubber-stamping sidekick Thomas, the rest of the Justices disagreed.
cbeenthere: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
AlanD2
Why don't you read posts, before you tell people to get out of the kitchen, jerk.
cbeenthere: I have read all of the posts in this thread. Calling people names is not likely to win you any friends here.
1) The rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.
2) The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a simple confrontation between 'Good and Bad', 'Friend and Foe'.
Enough Squiggy.
One Gerry- will be fine.
I was disappointed that the Planted Agent hadnt shown up to defend ridiculous right wing behavior, but apparently even he has his standards.
Before everyone gets too exorcised over this issue, it is useful to consider that Scalia, who has a very precise writing style, put the word 'actually' in quotes. That should be a clue to you to consider that he might mean something other than what the article blurb implies in its rabble-rousing fashion. Please read the opinion.
A Latina woman actually would come to a better conclusion than Scalia.
A monkey could come to a better conclusion. :-)
In rare form today JDK! LOL Careful, they might take away one of your JDK's for talking money! LOL
I love that. Yes, especially a "wise" latina. Scalia is pure, narcissistic evil.
Scalia never has been fit to serve on the Supreme Court. He is a hard core conservative who doesn't believe in abortion but believes in putting someone to death when there is reasonable doubt he is innocent! The same old hypocrisy that has always existed with the conservatives. That's why a lot of us conservatives left the right wing and became liberal over time. We couldn't stomach the element that had taken over the Republican Party.
Count me among the members of your camp.
me too.
what is wrong with you people?
because you don't agree with a justice, he/she is not "fit to serve on the supreme court"?
what incredible arrogance.
if your view was some sort of writ, we'd have 9 supreme court posts perennially open, which is to say, we'd have no court at all.
Common sense says that if there is new and credible evidence in a death penalty case, it should be heard, no matter what. Death is too final, especially if the person may be innocent.
marios: THANK YOU for making an actual argument. i agree with you.
This user is no longer registered.
Scalia is "actually an idiot."
No, he's not stupid. He's just a narcissistic asshole.
The Court recently overruled the famous liberal Ninth Circuit in a similar case presented by Sarah Palin and the State of Alaska. If this case comes back, it will be interesting, very interesting.
In the Alaska case Scalia denied a convicted man of his right to a newly developed DNA test to try to prove his innocence. He has made the same argument in this case where apparently witnesses have recanted their story. The people need a strong case to shoot down this vile, yes vile reasoning on the part of Scalia once and for all.
Yeah, I really don't understand why Scalia would not want to afford the Alaska guy a simple DNA test because of a technicality. That is beyond the pale.
This user is no longer registered.
Why did seven witnesses testify against this man, and then years later go on to recant their own testimony? Having honest witnesses in court, and a steep penalty for perjury (and letting them know what it is up front) is imperative to ensure that no innocent person is put to death. What a shame it is this man had to spend all these years on death row. What penalty will become of the witnesses whose false testimony helped put him there?
Perhaps they were pressured in some way. Would not be the first time.
could be they weren't willing to lie afterwards and go to jail for perjury to spare his life because he was guilty, but now that the statute of limitations on perjury is met they might willingly lie to free a cop killer
Maybe so, but can we afford not to give this man a hearing before possibly sending an innocent man to his death? What's the big deal? Spending a few extra bucks?
Wow, maybe that's the problem. You don't want to spend the money.
Yeah, good points there, maybe they were pressured. Seems that either way though, it is a case of the witnesses not interested in justice 20 years ago, all of the sudden interested in justice today.....Or it could be witnesses interested in justice 20 years ago, all of the sudden not interested in justice today. Either way, seems like a big issue beyond this case. What should courts do to ensure honest testimony, and a fair verdict?
devilsadvocate: There are hundreds of death-row convicts who have been freed by DNA evidence long after their original trials.
These men were fairly convicted (presumably) by the legal system of the time. The prosecutors had circumstantial evidence, and there were probably eye-witnesses that positively identified the defendants. This shows the sever limitations of our legal system.
Do you ever wonder about the innocence of people on death row in cases where no DNA evidence was found?
And what about the cases where prosecutors make up evidence or bribe other people to lie for a conviction? Plus there are many known instances of police officers lying under oath to convict innocent people.
That's true...and it just goes to show that sad state of our justice system, Alan. I recognize that all sorts of things happen, including what you stated.
My question is solely on the witnesses themselves though. Why, if they were lying then, did they not have the decency to tell the truth in court when someone's life was at stake? Seems that no matter at what point they were or were not telling the truth, by recanting their testimony, how do we know what to believe then? If they were lying 20 years ago, and caused a man to be wrongly convicted and sit on death row for 20 years, do they not have to bear any responsiblity for that? If there was prosecutorial misconduct that these witnesses knew about, should they not come forward and say so? My point is, this is not a case where an innocent man ends up on death row by accident. He ended up there either because he was guilty of the crime(s), or if he was not guilty, he ended up there because of someone else's irresponsiblity and lack of integrity, whether it be the witnesses or prosecutor.
If they find that he is not guilty, you don't just shut the book and say case closed. You free him from his sentence and find out how he was wrongly convicted in the first place.
devilsadvocate: Many witnesses in this kind of case are in jail and make a deal with the DA to lie about what the accused person told him (or her) in while in jail. In exchange for these lies, they get released or get a reduced sentence. (Note that I haven't looked at Davis's case itself.)
I have never heard of any DA being prosecuted for this kind of behavior. These people look after their own.
Let me get this straight. According to Scalia the Constitution condones the killing of an innocent man as long as he had a fair trial. Seriously?
Yup.
AlanD2
You don't have the corner in regard to objecting the the killing of an innocent man, and maybe you have never voted to disallow capital punishment where you live. I have, and my city, yes city, did not allow capital punishment. I would not live anywhere where it was allowed. And you???
I also appear to be the only one on this board who has brought up the fact that this is not the first time Scalia has ruled in regard to depriving another individual this time in Alaska overruling the Ninth Circuit who ruled in favor of the convicted in regard to a chance to prove himself innocent through an advanced DNA test, and Scalia ruled against and the person lost his right. Yup.
I came armed with more than a Yup.
cbeenthere: If I had a chance to vote on capital punishment, I would vote against it.
I also remember the DNA test case. This ruling was a disgrace. These conservative Supreme Courts justices obviously care little for justice, although they do love the law (but only if it reflects their values).
You got it straight!
dc:
Don't think that Scalia would think the trial was 'fair' if he was deemed guilty, even though he was innocent. Particularly if the verdict landed him in a noose, but it could be a good little exercise? hmmmm...
Scalia is a corrupt, homophobic, bigot.
How did this pig ever make it to the Supreme Court?
There must be some way to get rid of him, short of his death?
Oh that's right, the Supreme Court is royalty.
Homophobic and a bigot, fine, but "corrupt"? That is a ridiculous charge. Proof please.
Also, the fact that you don't like him doesn't make him ineligible to sit on the high court.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Justice Antonin Scalia has not indicated whether he will pull out a of an upcoming Supreme Court case involving Vice President Cheney, following reports the two recently went on a hunting trip and had dinner together.
Scalia denies doing anything improper.
Groups involved in a lawsuit against Cheney over his handling of an energy task force Monday questioned Scalia's impartiality, but so far have not said the justice should recuse himself from the executive privilege case.
"In a major constitutional case where the vice president's personal conduct is an issue, we are concerned," said David Bookbinder, Washington legal director for the Sierra Club, which helped bring the suit. "It certainly raises questions about the appearance of impropriety."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/scotus.cheney.scalia/
I'd say stating that an innocent man CAN fairly be executed by this government is corruption of the most vile kind.
corrupt is an easily defined word which can be applied in many ways. I do not believe that he is taking bribe money. However, Scalia is such a shameless ideologue and so morally corrupt that he should not be eligible to sit on a supposedly non-political court. You want proof..."This court has never 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," Justice Scalia wrote in a dissent. If that is not morally "corrupt" then I don't know what is. Furthermore, it is unconstitutional. I actually like Scalia, because he is brilliant and really well written. He is just so morally bankrupt that he does not belong on the supreme court. sorry.
sonofloud:
that's what you've got? an instance of arguable ethical import regarding a supreme court action that never happened?
JDK-JDK, that's absolutely true, provided you don't care what the word "corruption" means.
@hi
Moral corruptiuon?
JDK, ok, i could probably accept that -- it's subjective.
scalia resides on the opposite side of the political spectrum from me, but people who know even a little bit about u.s. constitutional law know that scalia's scholarship is undeniable. he makes interesting, insightful arguments from time to time, and while we are more comfortable with him in the minority, he has probably had a net-positive influence on the court. he also provides the most colorful anecdotes. as an oft-resigned sandra day o'connor used to say about his antics and stubbornness, "that's just nino."
i'm also getting a little tired of liberals vilifying and dehumanizing conservatives and vice versa, simply because there's a disagreement. what our country needs is more passion but less vitriol.
@hi
I am not a liberal.
Scalia is a vile human being... colorful commentary or not. It matters not political positioning to determine this fact.
ain't we a pair.
raggedy man.
Isn't homophobic and bigoted enough? They wanted to keep Sotomayor off the court because of "empathy".
who is "they"?
Republicans.
be careful, lest you commit the sin of associating one person with a similar person's guilt.
i seem to recall this onerous practice targeting barack obama and his various associates prior to his election as president.
well said JDK-JDK
Corruption in the legal context refers to a wrongful design to acquire or cause some pecuniary or other advantage. Corruption may encompass a variety of wrongful acts, such as, among others, bribes, kickbacks, jury tampering, and abuse of public office.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/corruption
i'm glad you looked the word up; now you are being asked to defend your use of it. so far you aren't faring so well.
it's fine if you would like to challenge scalia on the intellectual honesty and legal correctness of his decisions and concurrences. of course, that's a lot harder than tossing around ad hominems like "bigot," as it would actually require you to do research. which is probably why you resort to name calling -- you have nothing intelligent or constructive to say about the matter.
re: hithere3
"abuse of public office" I can't spell it out for you any more clearly.
Corruption rarely takes the form of a check with the word BRIBE written on the memo line.
i see your threshold for proof is quite low.
perhaps you'd make a better supreme court justice than scalia?
Why would anybody be surprised by this? Scala has stated this in other words more than once. His position is completely without morality in any decent society, much less a supposedly God-fearing one.
Scalia and Thomas have both long been a disgrace as Americans, much less as Supreme Court Justices. They voted that a prison inmate who was shackled and beaten by his guards, did not receive "cruel or unusual treatment."
The have repeatedly said that a person proven innocent of his crime is not necessarily entitled to redress in a court of law.
And they voted to block the democratic process (along with three other "conservatives") in Florida in 2000, insuring that Bushboy could steal the election. Of course, none of the above is what the right-wing calls "an activist judge."
WTF that means!!! Scalia and Thomas should both be impeached for not being members of the human species.
Mr.Scalia the secret society judge or the freemason judge who was chosen by the skull and bones men Bush.Mr.Scalia was put on that bench to push there agenda.
22 witnesses testified they saw Troy Davis put 3 bullets in Officer MacPhail. A mixed race jury found him guilty as charged. 7 witnesses have recanted. I think Davis had a fair trial and should have been executed long ago.
And who are you?
even though a majority of those witnesses have recanted?
wow.
really? is that all you care about? "a fair trial"?
gee... what about justice? the two are NOT the same thing.
That's the problem with witnesses who recant.....they have already lied once, what proof is there that they are not lying now?
but see, that's exactly it.
the threshold of proof for criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt." if you think none of the witnesses are reliable, whether or not they belong to the prosecution or the defense, the conviction should be tossed out.
that still leaves 15 witnesses who didn't recant so their testimony is still valid
that is correct. there is apparently new evidence, however, which is why 3 justices mandated a new evidentiary hearing.
worst-case scenario: the federal trial court is unconvinced by the new evidence and upholds the conviction and sentence, and taxpayers are out a few hundred thousand dollars with nothing to show for it.
best-case scenario: we preserve the life of an innocent man who was wrongly convicted and sentenced to death.
of course that's correct, you are the one who wrote "if you think none of the witnesses are reliable, whether or not they belong to the prosecution or the defense, the conviction should be tossed out."
7 out of 15 is not all.
correction......7 out of 22 is not all
sonofloud, you spoke very vaguely of uncertainty, and i was making a point about criminal trials.
if you think 1/3 of the prosection's witnesses recanting their testimony wouldn't put doubt in a jurist's mind -- not to mention the suspicion of collusion all around -- you're even more gullible than i thought you were.
hithere3
gullible is thinking you would have the maturity to admit your mistake
again, i agree with you.
This article doesn't reveal any new information about appeals courts, either the Supremes or any other. The appeals process only deals with whether the trial was conducted according to law, not with the actual facts of guilt or innocence, a fact that most Americans are ignorant of.
I would agree that Scalia's cockamamie "Originalist" theories do constitute "activist" judicial behavior. Thomas Jefferson made it clear in many writings on the subject that the Consitution was to be considered a "living" document, going so far as to suggest that it should be revised on a regular periodic basis to keep up with social progress in general.
Thus any claims by Scalia, et. al. that the Constitution should only be intrepreted according to the precise literal meaning intended by the framers (assuming this could even be determined) is creative fiction.
this isn't an appeal. it's a "new" evidentiary hearing carried out by a trial court.
there is nothing cockamamie about "originalism."
This user is no longer registered.
law is hard, alcamadus! it's much easier to vilify people rather than arguments.
scalia makes a specious argument. here are your choices:
(a) "scalia is stupid/a monster/corrupt/not fit to be on the court"
(b) scalia's argument in incorrect because ____________.
two guess which approach dominates this thread.
much easier to spread the hate than try and understand,
more comfortable to demonize than think
Actually the article is linked to here, but not posted here. What's posted is the Daily Beast's commentary on the article.
By clicking on the link you'll discover that the actual title of the article is, "Supreme Court Orders New Look at Death Row Case". It actually discusses the details of the case, and how it made it to the Supreme Court.
"Justice Scalia" ... what a misnomer! He's a monster, and he's also constantly being held up as an example of the kind of "justices" the right-wing wants on the Court. Shouldn't that tell us all we need to know?
Someone should frame Scalia for a murder and see if his opinion changes.
Like most
'Conservatives'
Scalia was born without
Any ability to walk in someone
Else's shoes.
Yes! A great description, Rita.
I'm going to steal it.
" believe it or not evidence of " actual innocence " has never been recognized as an independent grounds for habeas relief. As Scalia correctly notes, the Court has never held that such evidence entitles to to a new trial or release." Obsidian Wings blog
This would include the liberal courts of the 60's & 70's
Obsidian explains further " To claim that " actual innocence " triggers habeas corpus relief gives rise to an extremely complex set of constitutional and statutory questions, and has all sorts of wide ranging implications"
I
Alaric-
If evidence
Of actual innocence
Has never been recognized
As independent grounds for habeas relief-
Then what purpose
Does the Court serve?
Ritarita,
SCOTUS is mostly concerned with the larger constitutional principles such as due process and such. Seeking and getting relief by habeas corpus in federal court would apparenly make the federal court system the appeals court for all guilty verdicts instead of constitutional errors.. Habeas is a remedy for rights violations not conviction errors. State courts review conviction errors. Sounds like this decision has the potential to cause some real chaos in the legal system.
Ha! Unfortunately, they'd have to change his name and put him in blackface to make it stick.
Scalia and Thomas have both been atrocities on the court. I suspect Roberts and Alito won't prove to be much better.
Rightwing Justices is a contradiction in terms. These are "activist judges for the rich, the privileged and the Republican Party."
Now you know who is Ann Coulter's idol. Ann doesn't have a problem in executing/killing an innocent person as well. I really pray to allah/god/yahweh/vishnu/buddha/jehovah that one of Ann's immediate relative will be wrongly accused and convicted of first degree murder. Please (insert name of your diety) make this happen.. please, please, please.
Feeeeel the hate flow through you. It consumes you and makes you feel whole. Soon your journey to the dark side will be complete.
Good discourse in the " XTRA INSIGHT " piece. It would be interesting to know, I've looked but haven't found it, what physical evidence the state may have produced. It seems reversal of testimony in itself is not counted highly by appeals courts. I assume that it must be as a protection for witnesses. If reversal of testimony without further proof of innocence is enough to reverse a verdict, witnesses could be subject to threats, harrassment, extortion, and violence for life in order to force recanted testimony.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.