SoCalDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-22-11 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
| 13. His firstborn might have some second thoughts too |
|
“In a big family the first child is kind of like the first pancake. If it's not perfect, that's okay, there are a lot more coming along.”
Antonin Scalia quotes (American Supreme court justice , b.1936)
|
| - “Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached” |
SoCalDem |
Sep-22-11 05:56 PM |
#0 |
 -
If factual innocence does not render a verdict improper, then I do not know what will. |
alarimer |
Sep-22-11 05:57 PM |
#1 |
 -
what a fucked place this is. Unbelievable. fat tony should get a |
roguevalley |
Sep-22-11 08:30 PM |
#22 |
 -
FAKE QUOTE! Don't be misinformed. He didn't say it. |
uhnope |
Sep-23-11 04:32 PM |
#88 |
| -
so the real quote says exactly the same thing. |
provis99 |
Sep-23-11 04:42 PM |
#92 |
| -
well there should be |
SemperEadem |
Sep-23-11 04:43 PM |
#94 |
| -
Well the 8th Amendment and the 7th Amendment seem at odds |
Uncle Joe |
Sep-23-11 04:56 PM |
#100 |
| -
"The Only Law West of the Pecos" |
sulphurdunn |
Sep-23-11 05:16 PM |
#102 |
| -
He was claiming that by sending the case to a lower court |
sabrina 1 |
Sep-23-11 07:26 PM |
#112 |
| -
Which translated means: It's okay to kill as long as you do your paperwork. |
ixion |
Sep-22-11 05:57 PM |
#2 |
| -
to expand on that just a bit |
guitar man |
Sep-23-11 12:51 PM |
#55 |
| -
The Nazis made it clear that they wanted 'paperwork legal' too nt |
duhneece |
Sep-23-11 02:41 PM |
#69 |
| -
That is stunning! |
Chemisse |
Sep-22-11 05:58 PM |
#3 |
| -
IOW, the process must be protected at all costs. |
supernova |
Sep-22-11 05:59 PM |
#4 |
| -
words fail me ... |
Ship of Fools |
Sep-22-11 06:00 PM |
#5 |
| -
18 USC 115 |
jberryhill |
Sep-22-11 06:03 PM |
#6 |
| -
An oddly intriguing response... |
LooseWilly |
Sep-23-11 01:28 AM |
#26 |
| -
"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to" |
jberryhill |
Sep-23-11 07:19 AM |
#31 |
| -
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say that the Constitution... |
Shandris |
Sep-22-11 06:03 PM |
#7 |
| -
Yowzer. So does the law say that it's OK for the state to |
coalition_unwilling |
Sep-23-11 10:16 AM |
#35 |
| -
Yes, it very clearly says that |
Recursion |
Sep-23-11 12:41 PM |
#52 |
| -
Yes. That's exactly what it says, nt |
msanthrope |
Sep-23-11 01:05 PM |
#61 |
| -
The law nowhere says such a thing, despite the comments below. There are practices |
DrunkenBoat |
Sep-23-11 02:15 PM |
#67 |
| -
Thank you. Shandris' attempt to explain the tortured legal |
coalition_unwilling |
Sep-23-11 03:23 PM |
#75 |
| -
How can evidence that has never been examined by a court be "solid proof" of anything? (nt) |
Recursion |
Sep-23-11 03:29 PM |
#77 |
| -
even though it is THE reason not to carry out a death sentence; |
corpseratemedia |
Sep-22-11 06:03 PM |
#8 |
| -
"mere" factual innocence |
Betty |
Sep-22-11 06:05 PM |
#9 |
| -
Na, I'm sure if he was in that situation |
maxrandb |
Sep-22-11 06:12 PM |
#10 |
| -
well, you know, they create their own reality... |
phantom power |
Sep-22-11 06:12 PM |
#11 |
| -
While watching out for 'unknown unknowns' - n/t |
coalition_unwilling |
Sep-23-11 10:21 AM |
#37 |
| -
The use of the word "mere" caught my attention too |
me b zola |
Sep-22-11 11:03 PM |
#24 |
| -
He's insane AND corrupt. |
EFerrari |
Sep-22-11 06:16 PM |
#12 |
| -
His firstborn might have some second thoughts too |
SoCalDem |
Sep-22-11 06:18 PM |
#13 |
| -
Omg, a scratch kid! |
EFerrari |
Sep-22-11 06:21 PM |
#18 |
| -
Didn't they all vote to kill Davis? |
Bluenorthwest |
Sep-22-11 06:19 PM |
#14 |
| -
I miss Harry Blackmun |
Nye Bevan |
Sep-22-11 06:21 PM |
#19 |
| -
4 votes were needed to "take" the case under consideration |
SoCalDem |
Sep-22-11 06:22 PM |
#20 |
| -
court declined to review. i think there were two opposed. |
DrunkenBoat |
Sep-23-11 12:36 PM |
#48 |
| -
Where did you get that two were opposed? I haven't read that anywhere. |
totodeinhere |
Sep-23-11 04:47 PM |
#96 |
| -
Sadly no different in this case. I am especially disappointed in the Obama appointees. |
totodeinhere |
Sep-23-11 04:49 PM |
#97 |
| -
People in the future will look back on this |
Nye Bevan |
Sep-22-11 06:19 PM |
#15 |
| -
this is not the first time I've encountered this concept. |
grasswire |
Sep-22-11 06:20 PM |
#16 |
| -
I hate to be that guy. |
ProgressoDem |
Sep-22-11 06:20 PM |
#17 |
| -
I'm pretty sure Scalia is wrong |
ThoughtCriminal |
Sep-22-11 07:32 PM |
#21 |
| -
He's right, he was addressing whether to grant a new trial to everyone with an affidavit, see here |
nomb |
Sep-23-11 10:16 AM |
#36 |
| -
You're talking about a separate issue |
Recursion |
Sep-23-11 12:43 PM |
#53 |
| -
Um, the OP posted a link to the original source quote out of |
coalition_unwilling |
Sep-23-11 10:25 AM |
#38 |
| -
The quote is false. And thank god that it is. Fuck Scalia, I'm defending my own sanity here |
nomb |
Sep-23-11 10:36 AM |
#40 |
| -
Not quite--Herrera v Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 404 (1993) (Rehnquist, C.J.) |
msanthrope |
Sep-23-11 01:15 PM |
#64 |
| -
Well, how about this one? |
dpibel |
Sep-23-11 02:39 PM |
#68 |
| -
What part of the Constitution forbids that in your opinion? |
Recursion |
Sep-23-11 02:51 PM |
#70 |
| -
There's more than process to the Constitution |
dpibel |
Sep-23-11 03:29 PM |
#76 |
| -
I don't know that executing factually innocent people is all that unusual |
Recursion |
Sep-23-11 03:32 PM |
#78 |
| -
You actually said that? |
dpibel |
Sep-23-11 04:22 PM |
#83 |
| -
The case was Harrera, not Davis |
Recursion |
Sep-23-11 05:38 PM |
#103 |
| -
The case I quoted is Davis |
dpibel |
Sep-23-11 05:40 PM |
#104 |
| -
Umm... right... Davis was an application of Herrera |
Recursion |
Sep-23-11 06:02 PM |
#106 |
| -
Obtuse by choice? |
dpibel |
Sep-23-11 06:27 PM |
#108 |
| -
Sorry, can you just tell me your point? |
Recursion |
Sep-23-11 06:37 PM |
#109 |
| -
OK. I choose unintentionally obtuse |
dpibel |
Sep-23-11 07:06 PM |
#110 |
| -
What on earth are you saying? Can you just state it in plain English? |
Recursion |
Sep-23-11 07:15 PM |
#111 |
| -
It's a made-up quote. |
ProgressoDem |
Sep-23-11 12:21 PM |
#42 |
| -
"Actual Innocence is not itself a constitutional claim..." |
msanthrope |
Sep-23-11 01:11 PM |
#63 |
| -
He said it at a Pew Forum in 2002. The Pew site no longer has that forum's transcripts |
kestrel91316 |
Sep-23-11 04:43 PM |
#93 |
| -
It's not true. He's a liar. |
DrunkenBoat |
Sep-23-11 12:37 PM |
#49 |
| -
Does either Brown or Drake require an evidentiary hearing? |
Recursion |
Sep-23-11 12:52 PM |
#56 |
| -
"“There is *no basis* in *text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice*" = false. |
DrunkenBoat |
Sep-23-11 02:12 PM |
#66 |
| -
Well, what is it? There is significant precedent for a jury's verdict being sacrosanct |
Recursion |
Sep-23-11 03:01 PM |
#73 |
| -
There *is* basis, spin it as you like. Nothing in Scalia's statement said anything about |
DrunkenBoat |
Sep-23-11 03:23 PM |
#74 |
| -
Shudder |
donheld |
Sep-22-11 10:56 PM |
#23 |
| -
Factual innocence is enough reason to stop the |
The Second Stone |
Sep-23-11 01:14 AM |
#25 |
| -
Did he really say that? Sweet Jesus, he should be removed from the court simply for that. |
Poll_Blind |
Sep-23-11 01:54 AM |
#27 |
| -
As a matter of law I don't know any judge or lawyer who would disagree *with what Scalia said* |
Recursion |
Sep-23-11 12:34 PM |
#45 |
| -
If we can remove a judge for merely saying something that we disagree with then there goes our |
totodeinhere |
Sep-23-11 04:55 PM |
#98 |
| -
If a person is factually innocent, any death sentence is improper. |
baldguy |
Sep-23-11 06:26 AM |
#28 |
| -
Factual malfeasance isn't enough to impeach Scalia is what he 's hoping |
lunatica |
Sep-23-11 06:30 AM |
#29 |
| -
Well that explains a lot. |
City Lights |
Sep-23-11 06:48 AM |
#30 |
| -
Suppose Scalia were convicted of a crime (we can hope!)... |
Recursion |
Sep-23-11 02:58 PM |
#72 |
| -
In defense of my own sanity, because I could not fathom such an utterence, I checked it out: |
nomb |
Sep-23-11 09:48 AM |
#32 |
| -
One would think that he would have responded |
SoCalDem |
Sep-23-11 09:57 AM |
#33 |
| -
Oddly enough Scalia's concurrence makes more sense than Rheinquist's actual opinion |
Recursion |
Sep-23-11 03:38 PM |
#79 |
| -
Buh-bye America. You were a nice idea while you lasted. Just |
coalition_unwilling |
Sep-23-11 10:12 AM |
#34 |
| -
Who decides if new evidence exonerates the convicted person, and under what rules? |
Recursion |
Sep-23-11 02:56 PM |
#71 |
| -
EVIL. |
Nye Bevan |
Sep-23-11 10:27 AM |
#39 |
| -
Take the time to read the posts on this which are written by |
COLGATE4 |
Sep-23-11 04:10 PM |
#82 |
| -
Yes, I do realize now that he didn't actually say that. |
Nye Bevan |
Sep-23-11 06:04 PM |
#107 |
| -
Scalia missed his calling by a few hundred years |
hifiguy |
Sep-23-11 10:45 AM |
#41 |
| -
Fuck you Scarface! History will not be kind to the longest serving |
Rex |
Sep-23-11 12:26 PM |
#43 |
| -
I remember when that decision issued. Insanity, defined. |
DirkGently |
Sep-23-11 12:28 PM |
#44 |
| -
"mere" innocence. wtf? & "mere" guilt isn't enough to prosecute scalia for graft. |
DrunkenBoat |
Sep-23-11 12:34 PM |
#46 |
| -
The "mere" comes from a different quote, about "mere claims of innocence" |
Recursion |
Sep-23-11 12:38 PM |
#50 |
| -
In Herrera he basically said it. New evidence supporting innocence not grounds for habeus relief, |
DrunkenBoat |
Sep-23-11 01:01 PM |
#58 |
| -
Right, that is what the law says currently, yes? |
Recursion |
Sep-23-11 01:05 PM |
#60 |
| -
Not according to the three justices in dissent. |
DrunkenBoat |
Sep-23-11 01:24 PM |
#65 |
| -
he is one fucking sick puppy |
spanone |
Sep-23-11 12:35 PM |
#47 |
| -
''Factual Innocence'' THIS, Scalia, you NAZI whore. |
Octafish |
Sep-23-11 12:40 PM |
#51 |
| -
Who decides "factual innocence"? |
Recursion |
Sep-23-11 12:48 PM |
#54 |
| -
Straw man |
dpibel |
Sep-23-11 04:35 PM |
#90 |
| -
That's taking the law to an extreme |
treestar |
Sep-23-11 12:58 PM |
#57 |
| -
"mere" factual innocence turns the death penalty into premeditated murder of an innocent person. |
unblock |
Sep-23-11 01:03 PM |
#59 |
| -
Scalia's legal philosophy seems to be a twisted blend of Formalism and Pragmatism. |
white_wolf |
Sep-23-11 01:10 PM |
#62 |
| -
The exculpatory evidence in this case is interesting too |
Recursion |
Sep-23-11 03:42 PM |
#80 |
| -
Just goes to show |
jschurchin |
Sep-23-11 03:59 PM |
#81 |
| -
I said, “You know they refused Jesus, too” |
robertpaulsen |
Sep-23-11 04:24 PM |
#84 |
| -
FAKE QUOTE. Shouldn't these thing be deleted? This is what's wrong with internet mentality. nt |
uhnope |
Sep-23-11 04:24 PM |
#85 |
| -
were someone scalia loves to come under such a quote |
proud patriot |
Sep-23-11 04:25 PM |
#86 |
| -
Not merely 'ridiculous,' SoCal. |
elleng |
Sep-23-11 04:27 PM |
#87 |
| -
I cannot find evidence of that quote in the opinion. |
Indydem |
Sep-23-11 04:34 PM |
#89 |
| -
O'Connor's position in Herrera v Collins is actually worse than Scalia's. |
provis99 |
Sep-23-11 04:38 PM |
#91 |
| -
it's time for term limits on those yahoos on the supreme court |
SemperEadem |
Sep-23-11 04:46 PM |
#95 |
| -
Term limits might have also got rid of some great justices such as Justice Douglas. |
totodeinhere |
Sep-23-11 05:00 PM |
#101 |
| -
In a different time and place, Scalia would have been an eager gas chamber attendant. |
marmar |
Sep-23-11 04:56 PM |
#99 |
| -
Wow. That's unbelievable. I don't know of any civilized person who'd agree w/that. nt |
Honeycombe8 |
Sep-23-11 05:41 PM |
#105 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread