SC Justice Antonin Scalia says Death Penalty for Innocent Man is Perfectly Fine

[footstepsfrom#27]

This is a true mind blower. This guy has already done 20 years on death row, he's got a long list of both prosecutors and judges supporting his claim of innocence based on compelling new information, and the majority 6-2 SC decision does not over rule the appelate court, but merely remands the decision back to the lower court and asks them to retry the case with the evidence listed below. In spite of this, two of the SC's conservatives, Scalia and Thomas, not only voted to deny the appeal for a new trial, but they went farther. Scalia in his discenting minority opinon actually says that the constitution need not be intepreted to assume that an innocent man...one who can PROVE his innocence...should not be executed anyway if he had a "fair trial". Scalia believes the US Constitution need not offer protection from the death penalty for the innocent.

Are you ****ing kidding me?

Where is the conservative outrage over a hideous and outrageous opinion that flat out states that innocence does not matter so long as procedure is kept properly protected? Is this justice? What is wrong with these two morons when even the ultra right wing Justice Roberts agreed that this guy should get a new trial?

Here's the actual decision: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...rder-Davis.pdf Here's the link to the story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/us...33a&ei=5087%0A

Supreme Court Orders New Look at Death Row Case

Published: August 17, 2009

WASHINGTON — 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.

Seven of the witnesses against Mr. Davis have recanted, and several people have implicated the prosecution’s main witness as the actual killer of the officer, Mark MacPhail.



The Supreme Court’s decision was unsigned, only a paragraph long and in a number of respects highly unusual. It instructed the trial court to “receive testimony and make findings of fact” about whether new evidence clearly established Mr. Davis’s innocence. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the court this month, did not participate.

The decision set off a sharp debate between Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia about Supreme Court procedure, the reach of a federal law meant to limit death row appeals and the proper treatment of claims of innocence.

“The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death,” Justice Stevens wrote in a concurrence joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, “clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing.”

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.

“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.”

That question is indeed unresolved. In a 1993 decision, Herrera v. Collins, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court that “we may assume, for the sake of argument in deciding this case, that in a capital case a truly persuasive demonstration of ‘actual innocence’ made after trial would render the execution of a defendant unconstitutional and warrant federal habeas relief.” But the showing of supposed innocence in that case, Chief Justice Rehnquist said, fell short.

Mr. Davis reached the Supreme Court by an unusually direct route, filing an original writ of habeas corpus with the court rather than appealing from a lower-court ruling. The court has granted such petitions just a handful of times in the last century, and Justice Scalia said the court had not taken the “extraordinary step” of ordering a federal trial court to adjudicate such a petition from a state prisoner in nearly 50 years.

The move is especially troubling, Justice Scalia wrote, because “every judicial and executive body that has examined petitioner’s stale claim of innocence has been unpersuaded.”

In April, for instance, a divided three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Atlanta refused to allow Mr. Davis to file a habeas corpus petition, invoking the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a 1996 law that limits death penalty appeals.

“We cannot honestly say,” the majority said in an unsigned opinion, “that Davis can establish by clear and convincing evidence that a jury would not have found him guilty of Officer MacPhail’s murder” in light of all the currently available evidence.

Judge Rosemary Barkett, dissenting from the appeals court’s decision, complained of the 1996 law’s “thicket of procedural brambles.”

In addition to his other objections to Monday’s decision by the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia said it conflicted with the 1996 law.

But Justice Stevens said the law might not apply to habeas petitions filed directly with the Supreme Court or to inmates who can establish their innocence. Failing that, he continued, the law may be unconstitutional.

“It ‘would be an atrocious violation of our Constitution and the principles on which it is based’ to execute an innocent person,” Justice Stevens wrote, quoting Judge Barkett’s dissent.

[footstepsfrom#27]

This is some serious bull$hit here:

 

[Fedaykin]

This highlights one reason why the death penalty *must* be abolished.

[tnedator]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

Where is the conservative outrage over a hideous and outrageous opinion that flat out states that innocence does not matter so long as procedure is kept properly protected? Is this justice? What is wrong with these two morons when even the ultra right wing Justice Roberts agreed that this guy should get a new trial?

First, why conservative outrage? How about just 'outrage' in general? Why must everything with some of your guys be partisan, partisan, partisan?

Second, I am not a constitutional scholar, so this is a legit question. Where in the constitution does it say that what Scalia said is wrong? They are supposed to make their decisions based on the constitution, not what they 'think' is right.

Recently, in the last 40-50 years, I think, the court has become more 'political' and about making policy, rather than interpreting and enforcing the constitution. During this time the court has made rulings that should be 'amendments' to the constitution, not policy/law enacted from the bench.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by tnedator

Second, I am not a constitutional scholar, so this is a legit question. Where in the constitution does it say that what Scalia said is wrong? They are supposed to make their decisions based on the constitution, not what they 'think' is right.

There is evidence that may prove his innocence; thus, due process has not been served.

EDIT: In addition, much of the evidence used to convict him has proven unreliable at best, which further demonsrtates that due process has not been served.

Scalia is a **********.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by tnedator

First, why conservative outrage? How about just 'outrage' in general? Why must everything with some of your guys be partisan, partisan, partisan?

All over the world people are writing, calling and faxing the Court about this, but we have not heard a single peep out of the same people who were just a few weeks ago roundly grilling Justice Soutamayor as someone who was "biased" and beholden to trying to legislate from the bench, though it was actually not her that was doing so. Yeah...it's legit to ask where the conservatives are because these are CONSERVATIVE justices who voted for this.

Second, I am not a constitutional scholar, so this is a legit question. Where in the constitution does it say that what Scalia said is wrong? They are supposed to make their decisions based on the constitution, not what they 'think' is right.

Recently, in the last 40-50 years, I think, the court has become more 'political' and about making policy, rather than interpreting and enforcing the constitution. During this time the court has made rulings that should be 'amendments' to the constitution, not policy/law enacted from the bench.

This has NOTHING to do with "legislating from the bench". The preamble to the Constitution...the very first words tout the constition's purpose as one meant to "establish justice"...and this was not justice.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This is a damn procedural protocal they are arguing over, and if you read this, you'll see Justice Stevens arguing that Scalila is wrong anyway. Watch this video I posted. This guy was rail roaded by racist cops from the get go and he never had a fair trial in any way, contrary to what Clarence Thomas and Scalia are pretending. The constitutionality of protecting innocence is hardly worth arguing over. Historical precedent has ALWAYS laid actual innocence in the lap of the court of final appeal. To try to execute an innocent man on some supposed lack of constitutional authority to overcome an over zealous and evil law is nothing but an attempt at cold blooded murder.

[tnedator]

I don't have time now, but I will read and watch it.

If the evidence is so overwhelming, I am not sure why the lower courts have failed to find the evidence compelling enough take action. If he is innocent, I hope he is set free.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by tnedator

I don't have time now, but I will read and watch it.

If the evidence is so overwhelming, I am not sure why the lower courts have failed to find the evidence compelling enough take action. If he is innocent, I hope he is set free.

I'll tell you why...it's Savannah Georgia, that's why.

7 of the 9 witnesses have recanted and said they were threatened and coerced by the cops. The prosecution's key witness has emerged as the one that's the primary suspect now. There is no physical evidence at all linking him to the crime. Jurors have come forward saying they were coerced. The man arrested not only never had a police record, he had a long record of helping in the community, was the son of a police officer, and volunteered at the Police Athletic League helping kids. This was a case of souther race based injustice. Even his family was barred from the court room and not allowed to watch the trial. Now that all this has come to light, they are still trying to execute this man. This case should compel a federal investigation of the police and the prosecutor's office in Savannah Georgia.

[Garcia Bronco]

That is indeed a head scratcher. Good thing there is more than 1 Justice.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by tnedator

Where in the constitution does it say that what Scalia said is wrong?

Aside from the Preamble, Article 1, Section 9:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Scalia's probablly a bigot, but Clarence Thomas is just a dumbass. I wouldln't hire that guy to fix a traffic ticket for me.

[tnedator]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

Aside from the Preamble, Article 1, Section 9:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Scalia's probablly a bigot, but Clarence Thomas is just a dumbass. I wouldln't hire that guy to fix a traffic ticket for me.

First, while I haven't read it, it doesn't sound like this is a situation of Habeas Corpus being suspended, just left in the lower courts.

Second, this is the kind of inflammatory nonsense that riddles this forum -- "Scalia's probably a bigot".

Just because someone holds a differrent view than you, doesn't make them a racist, fear mongerer, or any other biggoted slur you want to toss their way.

I understand feeling this man should get a fair review, but to assume that a SC judge is racist, just because he doesn't believe their is justification for the court to hear the case, is simply ridiculous.

[cutthemdown]

either way he was part of a group where someone pulled a gun and killed. I don't feel sorry for him one bit. Sounds like he was up to no good to me.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by tnedator

First, while I haven't read it, it doesn't sound like this is a situation of Habeas Corpus being suspended, just left in the lower courts.

Second, this is the kind of inflammatory nonsense that riddles this forum -- "Scalia's probably a bigot".

Just because someone holds a differrent view than you, doesn't make them a racist, fear mongerer, or any other biggoted slur you want to toss their way.

I understand feeling this man should get a fair review, but to assume that a SC judge is racist, just because he doesn't believe their is justification for the court to hear the case, is simply ridiculous.

Not in this case it's not.

First of all, the right to Habeas Corpus was clearly and effectively denied the first time around, and second...have you read Scalia's discenting opinion? Read it...then read the rest of that article and listen to the video. Anybody who can't see that this guy was denied a fair trial...in fact anyone who can't see this guy was deliberately targeted by racist white cops for this crime AND that the cops and the DA continue to do so...they are either an utter moron or they have some kind of racist motivation.

Judge Sotomayor was called a racist for adhering to historical SC precedent and ruling in compliance with case law, for working for civil rights in a non profit tasked with protecting the civil rights of Hispanics and for having the gaul to think she might bring her life experiences to the table in a way that equated to quality decisions others might not be able to provide.

So when this douchebag says this case is without merit, yeah...I damn sure will call him a bigot. He's either a bigot or he's truly just flat out stupid. 27 judges and prosecutors signed the petition to free this guy. The prosecution's own witnesses say they were threatened and coerced into their testimony and the family was denied even being in the court room. This is a CLASSIC case of race influencing a death penalty case, yet thse jackoffs want to pretend there is something in the US Constitution preventing them from even granting a new trial based on the new evicence when they know it exonerates him.

I call a spade a spade. This particular court has a history of trying to roll back civil rights.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

either way he was part of a group where someone pulled a gun and killed. I don't feel sorry for him one bit. Sounds like he was up to no good to me.

He came to the aid of a man who was being pistol whipped by the police. The same witnesses that the cops browbeat into testifying against him, now say they know who really did it...the state's key witness.

Yeah...he deserves the death penalty. Good call.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by tnedator

First, while I haven't read it, it doesn't sound like this is a situation of Habeas Corpus being suspended, just left in the lower courts.

First paragraph of the decision:

"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 inno-cence."

Even Judge Roberts agreed.

[footstepsfrom#27]

This 10 minute video blows away any argument for convicting this guy, let alone executing him.



So where is Rush, Hannity, Palin, etc...the right wing that was so vocal about the alleged race based motives of Judge Sotomayor? Remember when they were screaming about this?

Now from the right...

*Crickets*

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

From the court-appointed pinhead to this sort of Nazi thuggery, Scalia's term has been one long sh*t sandwich served up for America.

[Rohirrim]

I always assumed Scalia was simply a narcissistic, ego whipped a-hole. Now I see that it's much more than that. He's a lunatic.

[Dudeskey]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

That is indeed a head scratcher. Good thing there is more than 1 Justice.

No ****, man...™

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

Not in this case it's not.

First of all, the right to Habeas Corpus was clearly and effectively denied the first time around, and second...have you read Scalia's discenting opinion? Read it...then read the rest of that article and listen to the video. Anybody who can't see that this guy was denied a fair trial...in fact anyone who can't see this guy was deliberately targeted by racist white cops for this crime AND that the cops and the DA continue to do so...they are either an utter moron or they have some kind of racist motivation.

Judge Sotomayor was called a racist for adhering to historical SC precedent and ruling in compliance with case law, for working for civil rights in a non profit tasked with protecting the civil rights of Hispanics and for having the gaul to think she might bring her life experiences to the table in a way that equated to quality decisions others might not be able to provide.

So when this douchebag says this case is without merit, yeah...I damn sure will call him a bigot. He's either a bigot or he's truly just flat out stupid. 27 judges and prosecutors signed the petition to free this guy. The prosecution's own witnesses say they were threatened and coerced into their testimony and the family was denied even being in the court room. This is a CLASSIC case of race influencing a death penalty case, yet thse jackoffs want to pretend there is something in the US Constitution preventing them from even granting a new trial based on the new evicence when they know it exonerates him.

I call a spade a spade. This particular court has a history of trying to roll back civil rights.

Clarence Thomas' never questioning obeisance to Scalia is mind boggling. He's like Dr. Frankenstein's Igor. What they really are living reminders of is the Colonel played by Alec Guinness in The Bridge on the River Kwai. They are so entranced with their devotion to theoretical purity that they completely lose track of the goals of the larger war - "...to establish justice."

This dissension of Scalia's is like spit in the face of liberty.

[footstepsfrom#27]

So where are the McDrama Lama's, Bronx 33's, Broncofan7's and the other righties on this board who ought to be weighing in on this thread? Or is this story just to embarassing for them to comment on?

So far all I see from the party of freedom and morality is "he deserves to die since he was there", and "that's a head scratcher".

Can't you people do better than that? This is a real story...unlike something about a guy who made a clown poster on Obama or some drivel like that.

[El Minion]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

.......

“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.”

.....

from Dershowitz:

Yet these words appeared in a dissenting opinion issued by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas on Monday. Let us be clear precisely what this means. If a defendant were convicted, after a constitutionally unflawed trial, of murdering his wife, and then came to the Supreme Court with his very much alive wife at his side, and sought a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (namely that his wife was alive), these two justices would tell him, in effect: “Look, your wife may be alive as a matter of fact, but as a matter of constitutional law, she’s dead, and as for you, Mr. Innocent Defendant, you’re dead, too, since there is no constitutional right not to be executed merely because you’re innocent.”

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

Aside from the Preamble, Article 1, Section 9:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Scalia's probablly a bigot, but Clarence Thomas is just a dumbass. I wouldln't hire that guy to fix a traffic ticket for me.

Its a good thing that we have the He's Probably A Racist dude here to remind us all that every issue is about race.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by McSkillet

Its a good thing that we have the He's Probably A Racist dude here to remind us all that every issue is about race.

That's what I thought, no condemnation for these actions from a guy who whined about bigotry from Sotomayor when he thought (wrongly) that she submitted an opinion based on race. What amazing hypocrisy you are capable of.

The simple truth is, this was some good old school southern style "justice" doled out by a racist police department, and a racist court, one so vile that the judge who decided this case took the outrageous step of actually trying to order this innocent man executed before the Supreme Court would have a chance to hear his case and expose the evil actions done to him. The fact that your only response to this disgusting violation of human and civil rights and the equally disturbing opinion from two conservative judges that it's perfectly fine to execute an innocent man is to indict my motivation in revealing this story tells me volumes about you.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

That's what I thought, no condemnation for these actions from a guy who whined about bigotry from Sotomayor when he thought (wrongly) that she submitted an opinion based on race. What amazing hypocrisy you are capable of.

The simple truth is, this was some good old school southern style "justice" doled out by a racist police department, and a racist court, one so vile that the judge who decided this case took the outrageous step of actually trying to order this innocent man executed before the Supreme Court would have a chance to hear his case and expose the evil actions done to him. The fact that your only response to this disgusting violation of human and civil rights and the equally disturbing opinion from two conservative judges that it's perfectly fine to execute an innocent man is to indict my motivation in revealing this story tells me volumes about you.

What it should tell you is that you need to take of your racism glasses, hoss, and put the race card down for once.