U.S. Supreme Court blocks Texas execution

[RandFan]

Oh, I disagree with Scalia on this point. I just don't believe his position is being fairly represented by the quote mining evidenced here and in most news articles on the subject.

I don't care. That such a statement can be made in any context is abhorrent and monstrous. A citizen of the United States either has a right to life or they don't. If you are innocent then all the legalese and logic pretzel twisting in the world cannot justify the highest court in the land turning it's back on that citizen.

 

[RandFan]

It does, but such things do not usually specify that Mr. Joe Schmoe of 120 Main St in Anytown, RS (Random State) has to die; they're usually more on the order of "we're going to cut funding of <X> even if it means some semi-random people may die." There are acts of war, too, but different rules apply.

In the case from the OT, fortunately, guilt apparently isn't in question. What is in question is how far the prosecution went to put the guy on death row. As I quoted above, it appears that they were willing to use "expert" testimony asserting, basically, that because the defendant is black he's more likely to kill again. It's offensive and, while IANAL, it sounds to me like it shouldn't have been allowed. The fact that the former top lawdog of Texas thinks so too ought to make even the most staunch pro-execution people think twice.

I will not dismiss your argument. We are on the same side. I could imagine a death penalty but that is an abstract point and not worth our debating it.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I never had the opportunity. There is no way I would ever allow an innocent person to die if I had the power to stop it.

So, if you had the physical power to stop it but it was illegal, and against your oath, to use that power, you still would?

Again, I believe it's important to understand that SCOTUS has limited jurisdiction. It is not within their Constitutionally-granted authority to just reverse any court case whose outcome they disagree with.

If a Florida case is genuinely outside federal jurisdiction, it's no more wrong for SCOTUS to fail to stop it than for the Iowa Supreme Court to fail to stop it.

The fact that Florida itself fails to stop it is a terrible injustice, but the fact that every other court in the country also fails to stop it, is a proper function of the system.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I don't care. That such a statement can be made in any context is abhorrent and monstrous. A citizen of the United States either has a right to life or they don't. If you are innocent then all the legalese and logic pretzel twisting in the world cannot justify the highest court in the land turning it's back on that citizen.

So you believe the Supreme Court should have appellate jurisdiction on all state court decisions? I'm pretty sure that would be unconstitutional.

 

[AvalonXQ]

If the law can't prevent the execution of an innocent man then the law is worthless and the death penalty needs desperately be abolished.

I agree.

 

[Babbylonian]

I don't care. That such a statement can be made in any context is abhorrent and monstrous. A citizen of the United States either has a right to life or they don't. If you are innocent then all the legalese and logic pretzel twisting in the world cannot justify the highest court in the land turning it's back on that citizen.

Scalia is evil, no question (and I won't entertain argument on the subject).

Still, how evil are the people who are legally and morally in a position to actually do something about these cases? Where are the governors and their people? The answer of course is that they hide from these issues so that they can never have them thrown back in their face ("Soft on crime!") when it's time to run for office again.

For example, it wouldn't take an hour for Rick Perry to look over this case, see that the defendant probably got railroaded to death row, and commute the sentence to life without the possibility of parole. But, that would be an hour he couldn't spend exalting Jesus or railing against Social Security on the presidential campaign trail, never mind the negative effect it would have on his state's execution stats.

 

[FattyCatty]

<snip>

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content and response to same

<snip>
In my opinion he is at best indifferent to innocent people being executed. It was this ruling that moved me from pro-death penalty to opposed. If you can have such a cynical (and IMO asinine opinion) then we should not have a death penalty.

What a coincidence. It was another possibly unjust Texas execution, that of Cameron Todd Willingham, that changed my mind about the death penalty. Texas governments seem to be big on not wanting to admit or correct errors in their decisions. Thank goodness they can be prodded sometimes.

Yes. Are federalism and limited jurisdiction such hard concepts to understand?

The federal government is not the only sovereign government in the United States. When the state government convicts you of a capital crime, it's the state government you have to convince not to kill you. If you want the federal government to intervene, you have to prove that the state government broke federal rules. This makes sense.

I believe in a strong Federal government. One of the reasons I do is that, having lived in many different states, I depend on the Federal government to protect me from the states' prejudices and idiosyncrasies. Many things in this country should be universal for all citizens, regardless of the state they inhabit; justice is certainly a major one of those things.

 

[RandFan]

So, if you had the physical power to stop it but it was illegal, and against your oath, to use that power, you still would?

Damn straight. I would gladly die for that person if it would raise awareness that the state killing innocent people is about the most asinine thing a nation can do.

Again, I believe it's important to understand that SCOTUS has limited jurisdiction. It is not within their Constitutionally-granted authority to just reverse any court case whose outcome they disagree with.

Again, it's the highest court in the land charged with protectiong cicil rights. I don't accept your proposition.

If a Florida case is genuinely outside federal jurisdiction, it's no more wrong for SCOTUS to fail to stop it than for the Iowa Supreme Court to fail to stop it.

Protecting civil rights is the highest priority of the Supreme court.

The fact that Florida itself fails to stop it is a terrible injustice, but the fact that every other court in the country also fails to stop it, is a proper function of the system.

No. Not it's the highest priority of SCOTUS to protect civil rights. If they can rule against the states to force integration then they sure can save the lives of innocent US citizens from being executed.

WTA: You get last word on this exchange.

 

[RandFan]

I agree.

I'm willing to leave it at that and not respond to your next response to my last one. We can disagree on the rest. I think you have a point BTW I just don't accept it in this case.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Again, it's the highest court in the land charged with protectiong cicil rights. I don't accept your proposition.

I mean no disrespect, but this does seem to indicate an ignorance of the Constitution and caselaw regarding the authority of the Supreme Court.

There is not one highest court in the US; there are 51 of them. Most of the time, a decision made by a state supreme court is, by law, the absolute final decision, and the Supreme Court has no authority to reverse it.

Can you accept that principle? Because if so, then it is possible to understand what Scalia is saying, even if you or I disagree -- namely, that the defendant wasn't even asking a question that SCOTUS is supposed to answer.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I'm willing to leave it at that and not respond to your next response to my last one. We can disagree on the rest. I think you have a point BTW I just don't accept it in this case.

Fair enough. I don't think making the Right to Life a constitutional question is a bad idea.
Of course, I would hope it would also apply to abortion law.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I know, That blew me away when I read it. He makes me sick.

Can I have more info or a link to this please?

 

[kmortis]

Keep it civil. Keep it on topic.

Pro-tip: The topic is not the other posters.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[commandlinegamer]

If the sentencing is ruled unfair because of these remarks about black people more likely to commit future crimes will it be commuted or is it more likely there will be a retrial?

 

[RandFan]

Can I have more info or a link to this please?

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN RE TROY ANTHONY DAVIS ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS No. 08–1443. Decided August 17, 2009
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dissenting.

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.

 

[Crossbow]

If the sentencing is ruled unfair because of these remarks about black people more likely to commit future crimes will it be commuted or is it more likely there will be a retrial?

My guess is that there will not be a re-trial since this issue is not about him being convicted.

Instead, I would expect that there would be another sentencing hearing since this case involves the sentence that resulted from the trial as opposed to the guilty verdict that was returned.

Does that make sense?

 

[RandFan]

I mean no disrespect, but this does seem to indicate an ignorance of the Constitution and caselaw regarding the authority of the Supreme Court.

There is not one highest court in the US; there are 51 of them. Most of the time, a decision made by a state supreme court is, by law, the absolute final decision, and the Supreme Court has no authority to reverse it.

Can you accept that principle? Because if so, then it is possible to understand what Scalia is saying, even if you or I disagree -- namely, that the defendant wasn't even asking a question that SCOTUS is supposed to answer.

Thanks, since you asked I will respond.

States rights is by no means a settled matter. Constitutional scholars have been baffled by a number of cases the courts have agreed to hear and ruled on that were believed to be out of their domain. Brown V. Board of Education and Roe V. Wade another. However, If SCOTUS exists for no other reason then it is to protect fundamental rights. No right is more fundamental than the right to life. It was declared an inalienable right in the Deceleration and codified into law in the 5th Amendment.

The notion that any innocent citizen could be put to death pro forma buggers the concept of inalienable right to life. It is to say that so long as formalities are met right to life is forfeit in spite of innocence.

FWIW, Scalia was one of only two dissenting votes. SCOTUS did rule that Troy Davis could, and he did have his hearing.

Since the worry is clogging of courts and war of attrition by defendants and their attys then the answer is really quite simple, given that life is an inalienable right, if we cannot guarantee that right then end the death penalty. Otherwise we live in the twilight zone.

I was answering you question so I will keep my promise to let you have the last word and will only respond to your next post if you ask me questions.

Thanks

 

[Darat]

Scalia personally does not accept this, based on other statements he's made. He seems to genuinely think that all these executed people are pretty clearly guilty.
I disagree.

Of course he would think the executed people are "clearly guilty" - they wouldn't have been executed if they weren't in the legal sense guilty.

 

[Metullus]

It seems to me that Scalia's point is akin to a situation wherein the jury in a criminal case finds a defendant guilty while the presiding judge is convinced, on the same evidence, of his innocence. Does the judge throw out the jury verdict based only on his perception of the defendant's innocence?

The difference, of course, is that in the case of SCOTUS the option of throwing out the jury's verdict might not be within it's purview.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What Scalia said was that it's not appropriate for federal court to overturn a state court's finding that the facts do not show the defendant to be actually innocent, as long as the state court made no Constitutional mistakes. It's not the place of SCOTUS to re-evaluate the evidence and make new factual finding; it's the place of SCOTUS to evaluate the process for Constitutionality and fairness.

Scalia isn't saying we should execute innocent men. He's saying that actual innocence is something you have to prove to the state court, not the federal court. I am inclined to agree.

This.