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.”
Zero001
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.
Talmageb
It doesn't qualify as cruel and unusual punishment to execute innocent people? Maybe I misunderstand the words cruel and unusual.
Genni2002
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.
AlanD2
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!
AlanD2
This is what happens when you have activist judges on the Supreme Court.
pkimelman
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.
roger37
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.
pkimelman
Thomas seems hypnotized by Scalia: he generally just votes however Scalia does. He is kind of a Scalia "mini-me"
MarcusTullius
What does "conservative when it comes to the Supreme Court" mean?
writerblock
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.
n--Y--charles116Alaric
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.
n--Y--genomegkThis user is no longer registered.
n--Y--genomegkAlanD2
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.
Johnny-Boy
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.
Nonplussed
"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.
Novista
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 ... "
Alaric
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.
n--Y--genomegkAlanD2
These days the conservative position is "Hang him now and give him a fair trial in the morning."
Ritarita
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.
squiggy
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!
JDK-JDK
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?
cbeenthere
See one of Sarah Palin's last dirty deeds just before she retired. Really, bottom line?
Alaric
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
cbeenthere
Alaric
A case similar to this took place SC last session. Research, research, research.
Alaric
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.
cbeenthere
I can pipe in wherever I want.
cbeenthere
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.
n--Y--genomegkAlanD2
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.)
JDK-JDK
@Alar
I said 2 conservative judges were on the DISSENT side, not in the majority.
Alaric
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.
cbeenthere
Don't lecture me Aleric.
MariosRight
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.
steve-annie
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.
AlanD2
cbeenthere: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
cbeenthere
AlanD2
Why don't you read posts, before you tell people to get out of the kitchen, jerk.
AlanD2
cbeenthere: I have read all of the posts in this thread. Calling people names is not likely to win you any friends here.
squiggy
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'.
Ritarita
Enough Squiggy.
One Gerry- will be fine.
nortonclybourn
I was disappointed that the Planted Agent hadnt shown up to defend ridiculous right wing behavior, but apparently even he has his standards.
sfmoorex
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.
DeeMonkey999
A Latina woman actually would come to a better conclusion than Scalia.
JDK-JDK
A monkey could come to a better conclusion. :-)
squiggy
In rare form today JDK! LOL Careful, they might take away one of your JDK's for talking money! LOL
Wordcommando
I love that. Yes, especially a "wise" latina. Scalia is pure, narcissistic evil.
tumbleweed
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.
JDK-JDK
Count me among the members of your camp.
aluxeterna
me too.
hithere3
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.
MariosRight
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.
hithere3
marios: THANK YOU for making an actual argument. i agree with you.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--charles116onedirector
Scalia is "actually an idiot."
garryboyle
No, he's not stupid. He's just a narcissistic asshole.
cbeenthere
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.
cbeenthere
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.
MariosRight
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.
n--Y--genomegkdevilsadvocate
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?
JDK-JDK
Perhaps they were pressured in some way. Would not be the first time.
Alaric
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
MariosRight
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.
devilsadvocate
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?
AlanD2
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.
devilsadvocate
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.
AlanD2
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.
dcbooknurse
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?
AlanD2
Yup.
cbeenthere
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???
cbeenthere
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.
cbeenthere
I came armed with more than a Yup.
AlanD2
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).
MariosRight
You got it straight!
Genni2002
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...
sonofloud
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.
hithere3
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.
sonofloud
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/
JDK-JDK
I'd say stating that an innocent man CAN fairly be executed by this government is corruption of the most vile kind.
Talmageb
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.
hithere3
sonofloud:
that's what you've got? an instance of arguable ethical import regarding a supreme court action that never happened?
hithere3
JDK-JDK, that's absolutely true, provided you don't care what the word "corruption" means.
JDK-JDK
@hi
Moral corruptiuon?
hithere3
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.
JDK-JDK
@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.
hithere3
ain't we a pair.
raggedy man.
MariosRight
Isn't homophobic and bigoted enough? They wanted to keep Sotomayor off the court because of "empathy".
hithere3
who is "they"?
MariosRight
Republicans.
hithere3
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.
sonofloud
well said JDK-JDK
sonofloud
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
hithere3
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.
sonofloud
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.
hithere3
i see your threshold for proof is quite low.
perhaps you'd make a better supreme court justice than scalia?
connie47
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.
periscope
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.
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.