|
mnottertail -> RE: Justice Antonin Scalia "Nothing Unconstitutional about executing the innocent." (9/23/2011 7:46:01 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
Your thread header contains a lie, that is not a Scalia quote. Scalia was discussing previous Supreme Court rulings in a professional, intelligent, and factual manner and you managed to reduce the discussion down to farglebargles and mnots level of sewer politics at the very beginning of the thread.
Congratulations.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Masta808
In regards to Troy Davis
Justice Antonin Scalia stated
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. 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.
I agree, why should actual innocents matter when he was already convicted of being guilty by a jury of his peers. New evidence and new Facts should not taint our legal system after a person has been convicted. It sends a message to criminals every where that if you didnt commit a crime you may go free. In this case, when deciding whether or not to kill someone, his possible innocence is irrelevant. Justice is blind people, it doesnt see the color of your skin, nor does it see the "facts" or "evidence", it hears them, it feels them. Do you really want to live in a society that allows wrong convicted criminals to go free? What about the victims? When will they get their Justice if we start letting actual innocents taint our legal system?
And dont go linking that clip from Boston Legal where Alan Shore takes on the Supreme Court. Thats fiction not reality.
This is the sort of shitlicking lying nutsucking gaybashing that sanity is famous for.
Never fact, never reason, never credible citation.
If it didn't travel from Limbaughs ass to Sanities tongue, you aint gonna hear anything from him.
But in essence Sanity is right:
This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted de-fendant 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 ques-tion unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt thatany claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitu-tionally cognizable. See Herrera v. Collins, 506 U. S. 390, 400–401, 416–417 (1993); see also House v. Bell, 547 U. S. 518, 555 (2006); District Attorney’s Office for Third Judi-cial Dist. v. Osborne, ante, at 18.
It was SCALIA AND THOMAS who said it.
(this btw is the prior case that the Supreme Court actually heard, not the denial of hearing the last one and staying execution further...) where the guy went to District Court (thats the 172 page decision quoted earlier; the infamous 'SCOTUS' decision from Southern GA District Court) to overturn a Federal Court decision which in essence was decided that although this guy could do that, the issue would only delay reality in that there was no relief grantable at the district court from the federal decision, so it was like getting a blowjob while wearing a rubber (italics my words interpreting, not SCOTUS')
|
|
|
|
