Read the quote:
"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," Scalia wrote.
Do you understand that Scalia actually said that as long as the trial was fair, the guy should be put to death even though he is later shown to be innocent!!!
What the hell is this anyway? The Taliban? The Nazies?
Fortunately Justice John Paul Stevens "... suggested that it would be "arguably unconstitutional" for the federal law to not provide relief for a death row inmate who has established his innocence. "
Reason enough to impeach Justice (where is his justice?) Scalia.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/17/AR2009081702748.html?hpid=topnews
"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," Scalia wrote.
Do you understand that Scalia actually said that as long as the trial was fair, the guy should be put to death even though he is later shown to be innocent!!!
What the hell is this anyway? The Taliban? The Nazies?
Fortunately Justice John Paul Stevens "... suggested that it would be "arguably unconstitutional" for the federal law to not provide relief for a death row inmate who has established his innocence. "
Reason enough to impeach Justice (where is his justice?) Scalia.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/17/AR2009081702748.html?hpid=topnews
Posts
2 comments:
Yes. Well. Impeaching the other party's pet Supreme is "the nuclear option" of politics. I don't imagine any of our elected planaria are likely to evolve enough backbone to start serious impeachment proceedings against a Supreme -- knowing full well that the same will happen to "their" Justices as soon as the power shifts to the other side of the aisle. Why wait for retirement when you can run them out on a rail and stuff the court with your own flunkies?
Not that I think Scalia is a useful addition to the SCOTUS, and not that his strict interpretationist crud isn't the equivalent literal interpretations of the Bible, and not that he doesn't need to *go*, but: it won't happen. Our Democrats can't even seem to make an organized case for health care reform, even when they control congress and the presidency. Do you really think that there's any one of them who could stare down Scalia?
Or stare down the teabaggers-with-guns that a Supreme show-trial would bring skittering out of the woodwork?
Also: Stevens' comment not only made the case for a stay of execution -- which has been granted as of this morning -- but essentially means that Davis' challenge can go to the SCOTUS without any more serious legal challenges... and gave Davis' defense attorneys their first and best argument for a retrial/dismissal. Scalia's letter of the law approach, while both strictly accurate and a grave miscarriage of justice, only applies when there was a full and fair trial. And there wasn't.
So. Davis is likely to go free, eventually. And we'll be left with a system that can deliver at least *some* justice. That's not much consolation. Not to the US, and certainly not to Davis.
**Edit: I've just realized that my reference to "planaria", above, is both inaccurate and highly insulting. Planaria are non-parasitical. I *meant* to allude to some other kind of spineless, parasitical platyhelminthes, I redact my original comment, and I apologize sincerely for any emotional distress my thoughtless choice of words might have caused in the planarian community.
I agree that planaria would be lothe to be found in such company. They would,however,be delighted to eat their livers.
That aside, you are spot on as usual.
Post a Comment