You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #19: I miss Harry Blackmun [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
Nye Bevan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-22-11 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. I miss Harry Blackmun
who refused to "tinker with the machinery of death".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  - 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 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC