Constitutionality of executing the innocent
2009-08-18 11:41:53.660279+00 by
Dan Lyke
3 comments
Our favorite Supreme Court whackjob Antonin Scalia in his dissent to the Troy Anthony Davis case:
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.
Screw the facts! We've got a process here we need to maintain! Via, Via.
[ related topics:
Law Civil Liberties
]
comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):
#Comment Re: made: 2009-08-18 14:34:54.231338+00 by:
ebradway
Oh... I didn't need to read that this early in the morning... It's astounding that
anyone in their right mind would actually commit those words to paper. Unless, of
course, they are followed by the words: "So, we need to create legislation or
amend the constitution to resolve this question."
#Comment Re: made: 2009-08-18 15:35:16.544514+00 by:
Dan Lyke
"It's astounding that anyone in their right mind..." (emphasis mine) Scalia is a wackjob who applies his Catholicism to his work and gets the notions of rights exactly backwards. Remember when he chillingly said
"The Constitution just sets minimums, most of the rights that you enjoy go way
beyond what the Constitution requires."
This is a man who clearly believes that rights are reserved to the state and granted to the citizens, and that citizens live strictly for the whims of the state. In short, someone completely at odds with my readings of the writings of the "founding fathers".
#Comment Re: made: 2009-08-19 22:36:54.021127+00 by:
m
Scalia should be formally introduced by his other name -- "The Queen of Hearts", but that might lead to some confusion with some similarly titled judges on SCOTUS.