moe09
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,101
|
Scalia
Sept 2, 2009 22:08:10 GMT -5
Post by moe09 on Sept 2, 2009 22:08:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Scalia
Sept 2, 2009 22:25:21 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Sept 2, 2009 22:25:21 GMT -5
Mr. Davis should have never put himself in the position of being on death row. [/sarcasm] |
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Scalia
Sept 2, 2009 22:35:55 GMT -5
Post by rosslynhoya on Sept 2, 2009 22:35:55 GMT -5
If Dershowitz can teach "prinicples of Catholic morality" at Harvard....  Those who aren't brainwashed libs might look at a more evenhanded treatment of the case: www.scotusblog.com/wp/hearing-on-innocence-claim-ordered/#more-10355Davis was convicted in 1991 of murdering an off-duty Savannah police officer, Mark Allen MacPhail, in 1989. Since his trial, Davis has claimed, seven of the state of Georgia’s key witneeses have recanted the testimony they gave at the trial. Several other individuals have implicated another man — the prosecution’s key witness against Davis — as the shooter.... Davis had filed what is called an original writ of habeas corpus — that is, a plea for his release, filed directly in the Supreme Court rather than in lower courts. Such claims rarely succeed. Justice Scalia noted in his dissent that the Court had not taken a similar step “in nearly 50 years.” ... The Court has never ruled on whether a credible claim of “actual innocence” justifies extraordinary remedies in federal court, when a state conviction is involved.... On the merits of Davis’ claim, Justice Scalia dismissed it as “a sure loser.” He said that the Georgia Supreme Court, the federal Eleventh Circuit, and the Georgia pardon board have all considered the very evidence that Davis now cites, and “found it lacking.” On the power of a federal judge to rule in Davis’ favor at this stage, Scalia argued that the 1996 federal law limiting federal habeas review of state criminal convictions — the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) — barred any federal court from hearing Davis’ claim because there was no error at his trial that violated any prior Supreme Court decision. ******************** There's no "suddenly alive wife" ... there's no evidence of any kind that this convicted cop killer didn't actually kill a cop. There's no procedural flaw in the trial, and as such, every one of his prior appeals have failed. So his lawyer throws a hail mary to the Supreme Court and strikes gold.... |
|
|
|
Scalia
Sept 2, 2009 22:56:40 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Sept 2, 2009 22:56:40 GMT -5
The issue raised has nothing to do with Davis's innocence, but, rather, that issues of innocence and guilt in this capital punishment case are treated so casually by Justice Scalia.
As a factual matter, there does not appear to be anybody calling for Davis's release on the basis of his clearly being innocent. There are calls for clemency, including from Pope Benedict, and a new trial.
We may also do well without gratuitous characterizations/insults such as "brainwashed lib[eral]s" or "Democrat[] Party" in other contexts. These tend to detract from what might otherwise be a thoughtful argument, and I do think your points are powerful to some extent. Apart from that, the label game becomes meaningless. There are reliable conservatives on this board who frequently, if not all the time, agree with the Republican Party. Shall we call them "brainwashed?" I suspect some of them or similarly-situated folks might even wish to be called "independent," whatever that is supposed to mean.
|
|
moe09
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,101
|
Scalia
Sept 2, 2009 23:04:04 GMT -5
Post by moe09 on Sept 2, 2009 23:04:04 GMT -5
It may well be that there is no "suddenly alive wife," but the hypothetical still stands as accurate. While I may be in the very beginning of my first year of law school, however, it does seem that exculpatory evidence later discovered and not considered before somehow goes against the Due Process Clause (I could be wrong)... I agree with Ambassador, in that, this is not about the man being innocent, but rather what constitutes fairness and justice.
I by no means am presenting this article as a "brainwashed lib" -- I don't think a minimum of 5 votes with 2 dissenting somehow makes this majority opinion ridiculous -- it just seemed like an interesting topic of conversation, and perhaps one that would spark an interesting legal debate amongst longtime lawyers on the board.
Also, I did not cite the article for discussion simply on the ruling, but also on Scalia's Catholic faith.
|
|
|
|
Scalia
Sept 3, 2009 7:00:36 GMT -5
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 3, 2009 7:00:36 GMT -5
It may well be that there is no "suddenly alive wife," but the hypothetical still stands as accurate. While I may be in the very beginning of my first year of law school, however, it does seem that exculpatory evidence later discovered and not considered before somehow goes against the Due Process Clause (I could be wrong)... I agree with Ambassador, in that, this is not about the man being innocent, but rather what constitutes fairness and justice. I by no means am presenting this article as a "brainwashed lib" -- I don't think a minimum of 5 votes with 2 dissenting somehow makes this majority opinion ridiculous -- it just seemed like an interesting topic of conversation, and perhaps one that would spark an interesting legal debate amongst longtime lawyers on the board. Also, I did not cite the article for discussion simply on the ruling, but also on Scalia's Catholic faith. It appears that Scalia is every bit as willing to contradict the principles of his Catholicism as he is willing to contradict the principles of his judicial theories—of course, when it serves his own purposes. It's unfortunate b/c on a theoretical level, I find Scalia's views on many things to be incredibly appealing, and I think that he has the most gripping personality on the Court. But the fact is that he, like all judges, can manipulate his approaches to reach the outcomes he wants. In the case of the death penalty, apparently it's as simple as "I don't think it's immoral." Well good for you, sir, but I'm fairly certain the Ed can explain exactly why your personal beliefs about a topic don't matter. The Church is the Church, and it considers capital punishment immoral. Get in line or you're not following Catholic teaching. I cannot see how any conservative can say with a straight face that a judge imposing capital punishments on innocent individuals is any different than a presidential candidate supporting abortion. |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Scalia
Sept 3, 2009 9:10:40 GMT -5
Post by Cambridge on Sept 3, 2009 9:10:40 GMT -5
As a libertarian, I have deep-seeded reservations about the death penalty. I am suspicious of all small-government conservatives who see differently.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Scalia
Sept 3, 2009 10:10:46 GMT -5
Post by kchoya on Sept 3, 2009 10:10:46 GMT -5
As a libertarian, I have deep-seeded reservations about the death penalty. I am suspicious of all small-government conservatives who see differently. OMG, Alan Dershowitz criticizing Justice Scalia? Stop the presses. Next, maybe Tribe will criticize the Chief Justice. Also, how does the death penalty not mesh with support of a smaller government? |
|
|
|
Scalia
Sept 3, 2009 10:16:12 GMT -5
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 3, 2009 10:16:12 GMT -5
As a libertarian, I have deep-seeded reservations about the death penalty. I am suspicious of all small-government conservatives who see differently. OMG, Alan Dershowitz criticizing Justice Scalia? Stop the presses. Next, maybe Tribe will criticize the Chief Justice. Also, how does the death penalty not mesh with support of a smaller government? What "bigger" can a government do than kill people? Talk about the ultimate exercise of power and authority. If you want the government out of the economy, I want the government out of the business of playing God. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Scalia
Sept 3, 2009 10:25:04 GMT -5
Post by kchoya on Sept 3, 2009 10:25:04 GMT -5
OMG, Alan Dershowitz criticizing Justice Scalia? Stop the presses. Next, maybe Tribe will criticize the Chief Justice. Also, how does the death penalty not mesh with support of a smaller government? What "bigger" can a government do than kill people? Talk about the ultimate exercise of power and authority. If you want the government out of the economy, I want the government out of the business of playing God. Either you're intentionally playing dumb, or you have no clue what conservatives mean when they talk about smaller government. If you want the government "out of the business of playing god," then you'll have to do away with the entire criminal justice system then. The same authority that allows the imposition of the death penalty also allows the imposition of a life sentence in jail. And I'm still waiting for someone to point out to me where the Constitution guarantees and actual innocent person the right to be free from punishment. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Scalia
Sept 3, 2009 10:33:37 GMT -5
Post by Boz on Sept 3, 2009 10:33:37 GMT -5
I'm OK with people being upset that Antonin Scalia, a Catholic, does not oppose the death penalty. After all, Nancy Pelosi has been an outspoken critic of abortion and of Roe v. Wade for her entire career. I thought people's personal religious views were not supposed to influence their policy decisions? Or is that a standard we only selectively apply (like so many others)? |
|
|
|
Scalia
Sept 3, 2009 10:55:43 GMT -5
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 3, 2009 10:55:43 GMT -5
What "bigger" can a government do than kill people? Talk about the ultimate exercise of power and authority. If you want the government out of the economy, I want the government out of the business of playing God. Either you're intentionally playing dumb, or you have no clue what conservatives mean when they talk about smaller government. If you want the government "out of the business of playing god," then you'll have to do away with the entire criminal justice system then. The same authority that allows the imposition of the death penalty also allows the imposition of a life sentence in jail. And I'm still waiting for someone to point out to me where the Constitution guarantees and actual innocent person the right to be free from punishment. I don't think conservatives know what conservatives mean when they talk about smaller government. I think most of them just use the phrase as shorthand for "less of what we don't like so there can be more of what we do like." As for equating the entire justice system with "playing God," I think there's a clear difference between punishments imposed by men, which may include restricting freedoms and liberties, versus those acts that I equate with "playing God": namely the giving and taking of life. If killing someone for a crime that they did not commit is anything but "unusual," then I think there are some MAJOR problems with what's "usual." |
|
|
|
Scalia
Sept 3, 2009 11:45:41 GMT -5
Post by badgerhoya on Sept 3, 2009 11:45:41 GMT -5
As a libertarian, I have deep-seeded reservations about the death penalty. I am suspicious of all small-government conservatives who see differently. While I think the remark about small government conservatives is a little off-topic here, it's hard not to have deep-seeded reservations -- especially when things like this come out: www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Scalia
Sept 4, 2009 11:47:10 GMT -5
Post by Cambridge on Sept 4, 2009 11:47:10 GMT -5
It goes without saying that I'm also highly suspicious of big-government liberals who want the government to not make moral decisions or judgments, but manage/regulate/control their health care system, financial institutions and the economy.
I find the death penalty to be the first step towards tyranny. It places far too much power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, politically motivated prosecutors and morally corrupt politicians. Just by having the death penalty on the table forces most defendants to plead out to lesser charges - despite scant evidence they were guilty of anything at all. Simple game theory drives them to give up one of the most fundamental and primary rights we have - a jury trial and the rights and protections of the constitution. Now, I don't want them to go free or to be happy, and I don't want to be "soft" on crime; I simply want the accused to go to trial and if found guilty by a jury of their peers to go to jail. Anything less is pretty much antithetical to everything the founding fathers stood for.
|
|
|
|
Scalia
Sept 4, 2009 13:27:58 GMT -5
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Sept 4, 2009 13:27:58 GMT -5
It goes without saying that I'm also highly suspicious of big-government liberals who want the government to not make moral decisions or judgments, but manage/regulate/control their health care system, financial institutions and the economy. I find the death penalty to be the first step towards tyranny. It places far too much power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, politically motivated prosecutors and morally corrupt politicians. Just by having the death penalty on the table forces most defendants to plead out to lesser charges - despite scant evidence they were guilty of anything at all. Simple game theory drives them to give up one of the most fundamental and primary rights we have - a jury trial and the rights and protections of the constitution. Now, I don't want them to go free or to be happy, and I don't want to be "soft" on crime; I simply want the accused to go to trial and if found guilty by a jury of their peers to go to jail. Anything less is pretty much antithetical to everything the founding fathers stood for. That was very well put. |
|
