Author Topic: Scalia: "Nothing Unconstitutional About Executing the Innocent."  (Read 1388 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline amonvanroark

  • Brigadier
  • *
  • Posts: 3161
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Scalia says there`s nothing unconstitutional about executing the innocent.

Almost two decades ago, Troy Anthony Davis was convicted of murder and sentenced to die. Since then, seven of the witnesses against him have recanted their testimony, and some have even implicated Sylvester `Redd` Coles, a witness who testified that Davis was the shooter. In light of the very real evidence that Davis could be innocent of the crime that placed him on death row, the Supreme Court today invoked a rarely used procedure giving Davis an opportunity to challenge his conviction. Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, however, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized his colleagues for thinking that mere innocence is grounds to overturn a conviction:

    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.

So in Justice Scalia`s world, the law has no problem with sending an innocent man to die.  One wonders why we even bother to have a Constitution.

SOURCE


Poster's comment: Only in America! There were 155 comments on this article, and even though I have read only the first few, they seem to be constent in their outrage.
Personally, I think that due to Scalia's attitude, he would have no problems with a few good men visiting him at the Supreme Court, with a stout noose in hand and doing the predictable and logical thing.
After all, he is likely much less innocent than those innocents he would have executed.
Fucking Piece of Shit!!  >:(
"Truth: An ingenious compound of desirability of appearance."
-Ambrose Bierce

Offline FLAT_HEADED_RUSSIAN

  • Troll
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 4956
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • The Empire is falling
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia: "Nothing Unconstitutional About Executing the Innocent."
« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2009, 01:25:41 PM »
The Supreme Soviet
We are Legion
We do not forgive
We do not forget
Expect us

Offline bpocatch

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 5336
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia: "Nothing Unconstitutional About Executing the Innocent."
« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2009, 03:28:57 PM »
Iz there any doubt this clown is crypto kike?

Offline amonvanroark

  • Brigadier
  • *
  • Posts: 3161
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia: "Nothing Unconstitutional About Executing the Innocent."
« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2009, 05:03:32 PM »
Iz there any doubt this clown is crypto kike?

Possibly, or even quite likely.

However, what he did was make a very stupid statement, and all know, because of this, just what a fool he is.

The written law, and Constitution, are one thing; fairness and common sense are another.

Obviously, Scalia has absconded on the latter for the former, and just for his interpretation of it.

Not good.
"Truth: An ingenious compound of desirability of appearance."
-Ambrose Bierce

Offline thomaspain

  • Group Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1357
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia: "Nothing Unconstitutional About Executing the Innocent."
« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2009, 05:19:00 PM »
Quote
Scalia says there`s nothing unconstitutional about executing the innocent.

They are arrogant bastards since they feel secure in their dominance.


WE CONTROL AMERICA
`EVERY TIME WE DO SOMETHING, YOU TELL ME
 AMERICA WILL DO THIS AND WILL DO THAT...
I WANT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING VERY CLEAR:
DON`T WORRY ABOUT AMERICAN PRESSURE ON ISRAEL.
 WE THE JEWISH PEOPLE, CONTROL AMERICA,
 AND THE AMERICANS KNOW IT.`

- Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001.
Note: The above statement has been censored from all Jewish controlled media.



VETERAN'S CHALLENGE
I once swore an Oath
to defend the CONSTITUTION
against all its enemies
foreign and domestic.

DOMESTIC?

http://www.exrayvision.com/photos/trip/Tombstone/gallows.jpg




Offline bpocatch

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 5336
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia: "Nothing Unconstitutional About Executing the Innocent."
« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2009, 06:09:58 PM »
Scaly gave us Bush over the dreadful but  the less likely to bankrupt us in stupid genocide wars Jew Kerry in the vote fraud of Florida.

Scaly said to the unconsitutional internvention "We you asked us to."  ::) . . .  >:(


Offline EyeBelieve

  • General of the Army
  • *****
  • Posts: 8632
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia: "Nothing Unconstitutional About Executing the Innocent."
« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2009, 07:52:37 PM »
Scalia used to work for Nixon, then Joo-infested Uni of Chicago & also Joo-infested Tulane.  As much as I detest DA's, at least they know the system is error-prone, while ivory-tower douchebags like Scalia pretend the opposite.

Offline SlackerSlayer

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1830
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • freedom, don't ask for it just live it
    • View Profile
    • Sams you tube video posting account, SlackerSlayer my voice
Re: Scalia: "Nothing Unconstitutional About Executing the Innocent."
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2009, 03:06:09 AM »
Poster's comment: Only in America! There were 155 comments on this article, and even though I have read only the first few, they seem to be constent in their outrage.
Personally, I think that due to Scalia's attitude, he would have no problems with a few good men visiting him at the Supreme Court, with a stout noose in hand and doing the predictable and logical thing.
After all, he is likely much less innocent than those innocents he would have executed.
Fucking Piece of Shit!!


I must have logged on to rense after you did, mine are dropped off as 183, 185, 199.

Here they are.
Quote
post 183,
Does anyone have any questions as to why I call them all 'Repulsivicans'? The Democrypts are not any better, they see a man that is in a Prison, wrongly convicted and he remains in that Prison. Why can't they instead of passing the buck, release him with the States option to retry him?

These two in the minority can get in a Taxi and go visit duh man in the White House and demand he immediately release him one way or the other, many options for the innocent, unduely tried man to get his liberty BACK NOW.

He may be a 'Co-Conspirator' in the original crime, but he was not tried for that.

When they stick to "procedures" in the case of a clear unfair trial when so many "Witnesses" have recanted and especially when they claim "Police coercion to convict" are made by two of them.(*-see next reply)

The Constitution does have this to say when you try to find guilt. It only takes two people on oath or affirmation to convict a man of high crimes or treason, so why not two to free the innocent, or those that faced an unfair trial.

Why do people take the "government" (whatever that is and means) position over the collective liberty of the people when there may be a political balancing game going on? Government is a collection of parasites developing empires to lord over.

I'm sick of hearing about innocent people laying in wait one second longer stuck in some Prison, while someone processes some paper for 'permission' to release them, what are telephones for. Liberty over procedure, or you're all dead in the head.


---------
Next 185,
To finnsih my thought for "When they stick to "procedures" in the case of a clear unfair trial ",

they are acting as robots for an organized criminal money machine to keep people in the (IN)justice system.

Does anyone remember the idea of "it is better that ten guilty go free that not one innocent suffer injustice of a wrongful conviction"?

--------
And last,
You said it Mel23 on post 197.

They rant and rave over an unborn, but they figure "let god sort out our mistakes" when they kill an obviously innocent man.

But the problem comes up, the prosecution and the police violated his right to a fair trial and in my opinion have committed far more serious crimes that should see a death penalty also. To knowingly work to frame an innocent man to quell a raging public about your lack of policing skills to actually catch and try the right criminal.

They knew he was innocent going into his trial.

 
Truth justice and the American way is a list of three different things that are not necessarily related. 2001 9 11 is an inside job and an open case file treated by those that refuse to do their duty as a closed case file.

Offline bpocatch

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 5336
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia: "Nothing Unconstitutional About Executing the Innocent."
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2009, 04:32:34 AM »
I am a pacifist but * redacted *.  Not going to bore you with my english common law rant and judicial activism rant. but

Take Roe vs Wade.  Mafia buys judges in order to "legalize" abortion.  Don't bow up on me libs, you can kill your spawn all you want.  But you are going to get a majority of the people before you do.   Just like the majority did to stop it.


Offline SlackerSlayer

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1830
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • freedom, don't ask for it just live it
    • View Profile
    • Sams you tube video posting account, SlackerSlayer my voice
Re: Scalia: "Nothing Unconstitutional About Executing the Innocent."
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2009, 12:04:41 PM »
Yes there was some of that comparison to abortion made in the linked comments too.

Why do you people think that a life already here deserves to be tossed out just because of some police and prosecutorial behavior of this 'career' meaning more than the truth and wanting to keep his Win column intact? There is no organized criminal behavior to frame an innocent human into a prison cell when a woman walks into a doctors office. Besides that, your greed to keep young mothers in poverty could be that driving force taking them into the doctors office to abort. Of course you never realize that part of the abortion equation.


The insane "justice" should be impeached for placing 'occupied procedure' over truth and justice.
Truth justice and the American way is a list of three different things that are not necessarily related. 2001 9 11 is an inside job and an open case file treated by those that refuse to do their duty as a closed case file.

Offline GreyLmist

  • First Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 642
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia: "Nothing Unconstitutional About Executing the Innocent."
« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2009, 09:35:52 AM »
Why isn't Justice Thomas isn't getting any heat for joining Scalia's dissent?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but what apparently has happened here is that  Davis went through all of the channels that Congress had limited in 1996 for such appeals and had managed to get before the Supreme Court where the other Justices, not Scalia and Thomas, refused to do anything other than kick the case back to the lower courts against the AEDPA law (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act) where the judge would be breaking that law if his case was heard there.


http://www.
time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1917118,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

Davis Ruling Raises New Death-Penalty Questions
By David Von Drehle
Tuesday, Aug. 18, 2009

Georgia death-row prisoner Troy Davis, left
 

Under normal circumstances, it takes a case of national importance to rile the Supreme Court during its summer recess. But in the words of an old axiom about capital punishment, "death is different." And so, on a sleepy mid-August Monday, Aug. 17, the court `” over a strong dissent `” dusted off an antique tool, unused for nearly half a century, to force a new hearing into the slow-rolling fate of a Georgia death-row prisoner named Troy Davis. In the process, the court has opened up new questions about the death penalty: most crucially, how far the courts must go to ensure that an innocent person `” as a wide array of politicians, former prosecutors and judges contend Davis is `” is not executed.


Like most death-penalty cases, this story is maddening and convoluted. Davis was convicted in 1991 of a tawdry and pathetic 1989 murder. On a hot Savannah night almost exactly 20 years ago, Davis and two acquaintances were hassling a homeless man at a Burger King parking lot next to the bus station. They wanted his beer, and one of the bullies `” either Davis or a fellow known as Red Coles `” clubbed the victim with a handgun. As it happened, an off-duty police officer, Mark MacPhail, was providing security at the restaurant. When he came running to the scene, the man with the gun shot the officer to death.
(Read "Will Georgia Kill an Innocent Man?")
 

Anyone who has ever spent a few weeks on the police beat could guess what happened next. Coles blamed Davis. Davis fingered Coles. Investigators built a case from the available materials: ambiguous ballistics, jailhouse snitches, witnesses with grudges and the often unreliable observations of the sort of folks who need a burger at 1 a.m. The amalgam was enough to persuade 12 jurors that Davis was guilty, and because the dead man wore a badge, the sentence was death.

Five years later, Congress, exasperated by the seemingly endless nature of death-penalty appeals, passed a law intended to speed the death-row journeys of prisoners like Davis. Optimistically called the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), the new law attempted to limit death-row prisoners to one set of appeals in federal court. Despite the restriction, Davis raised a variety of constitutional issues in his trip through the federal courts. Along the way, his lawyers accumulated a stack of affidavits from the motley crew of witnesses and from snitches of their own recanting their trial testimony and, in some cases, pointing new fingers at Coles. The Davis case became a morass of contradictory statements from addled witnesses, many of whom were either lying then or are lying now `” or maybe both.
(See "Top 10 Unsolved Crimes.")
 

Still, a necessary fiction underpinning our justice system is the idea that juries get things right, and so over the years, the courts found no reason to overturn the verdict, in some instances rejecting Davis' appeals on purely procedural grounds. At one point, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles conducted a detailed examination of the new evidence, but when it decided that Davis did not deserve mercy, the prisoner was forced to ask a panel of judges from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for special permission under the AEDPA to file a second federal appeal `” this one based on the simple claim that Davis is plainly innocent.

By a vote of 2 to 1, the panel ruled against Davis, and this is where the Supreme Court comes in. Numerous times since the 1996 law was passed, the high court has ruled that the limits imposed by the AEDPA are valid `” when they restrict the lower courts. But the Justices held open their own prerogative to issue a writ of habeas corpus if so moved. In other words, the lower federal courts had no power to hear another word from Davis. But he could make his pitch directly to the Supreme Court. Prisoners have been trying for nearly 50 years without success to get the Justices to employ this "original jurisdiction." Davis succeeded.
(Read "Stay of Execution for Georgia Man.")
 

"The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death clearly provides an adequate justification," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens, in an opinion joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. "Simply put, the case is sufficiently 'exceptional' to warrant utilization of this Court's" power to intervene from on high. The court ordered a federal district judge in Georgia to examine all the conflicting evidence in the case and determine whether Davis is, in fact, innocent.

But that in and of itself seems to violate the AEDPA, which specifically bars the district judges from having anything more to do with this case. This wrinkle sent Justice Antonin Scalia to his writing desk. In a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Scalia noted the odd fact that the Supreme Court was ordering the lower-court judge to hold a hearing that, according to Congress, the judge is not allowed to convene. "Without explanation and without any meaningful guidance," Scalia wrote, the court was sending the district judge "on a fool's errand." The evidence, he asserted, "has been reviewed and rejected at least three times," and even if the judge finds it compelling, where's the legal power for the judge to act?
(See "Top 10 Crime Stories of 2008.")
 


For Douglas Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University, "the way the court 'decided' the Troy Davis case today raises a lot more questions than it answers. It also probably ensures still more litigation in the future."

Among the questions: Is the district judge advising the Supreme Court on how to handle the Davis case or is the matter now formally in the district court again? Do the three silent Justices, who signed neither opinion `” Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito `” have a shared view of this unusual action? (Newly sworn-in Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not participate in the case.) Is this step a prelude to an official determination that the Constitution forbids the execution of an innocent prisoner, a seemingly obvious assumption that has never been formally declared? If so, what new filters of trial procedure and judicial review will have to be installed to reach that level of certainty and perfection? In his dissent, Scalia wrote, "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."

The court's August eruption highlights once again the fundamental screwiness of America's death penalty. In the marble halls of our rational humanity, we demand absolute clarity and justice. As one of the many judges who has reviewed Davis' case puts it, "I do not believe that any member of a civilized society could disagree that executing an innocent person would be an atrocious violation of our Constitution and the principles upon which it is based."

But most murders don't happen in the precincts of the rational or the just. They happen on the late-night mean streets, where truth is often a figment, and memory is as slippery as the greasy pavement.

(Read TIME's 2003 cover story on the death penalty, "Guarding Death's Door.")

Offline SlackerSlayer

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1830
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • freedom, don't ask for it just live it
    • View Profile
    • Sams you tube video posting account, SlackerSlayer my voice
Re: Scalia: "Nothing Unconstitutional About Executing the Innocent."
« Reply #11 on: August 21, 2009, 02:04:16 AM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what apparently has happened here is that  Davis went through all of the channels that Congress had limited in 1996 for such appeals

You are wrong as well as this "Jurist"

The point is the police and prosecution conspired together to give this Citizen a framed up trial making his trail a fraud of injustice and of coerced witnesses that have the courage to speak up when a severe wrong is committed against a fellow Citizen. Get it now? Well the idea of 'his fair trail and appeals' is mute.


Quote
where's the legal power for the judge to act?

In the fact the defense was not available thanks to the criminal actions of the prosecution. Clear grounds for a dismissal of the conviction.
Truth justice and the American way is a list of three different things that are not necessarily related. 2001 9 11 is an inside job and an open case file treated by those that refuse to do their duty as a closed case file.

Offline bpocatch

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 5336
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia: "Nothing Unconstitutional About Executing the Innocent."
« Reply #12 on: August 21, 2009, 06:03:04 AM »
I am against any reading into it.  But that is not my main rant.  This clown plays the anti activist the anti neo liberal role.

"I am Mr Spock logic guy.  I don't  read anything into the Constiution. Words have specific meaning blah blah..."

Then when he is needed he does the opposite and give Boosh the Presidency.  ::)