Just wanted to respond to this post from the Hangout thread here. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=10311447&postcount=40 Scalia in a 1994 dissent held that actual innocence isn't a bar to execution if proper procedures had been followed: http://www.businessinsider.com/antonin-scalia-says-executing-the-innocent-is-constitutional-2014-9 [rquoter]"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," Scalia wrote in a 2009 dissent of the Court's order for a federal trial court in Georgia to consider the case of death row inmate Troy Davis. "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."[/rquoter] So if Scalia did preside over criminal cases he's probably not the judge you want as innocence even when subject to the ultimate penalty wasn't that much of a concern of his.
I guess the GOP is weak here but the denial is the only opening position for any deal for them. It's what I would say if I were them. If they ever do want to say OK this centrist judge would be OK, they have to start with no. Of course any agreement is going to get the GOP agree-er tea-partied in his next primary. K Street has the biggest boner right now.
No, Scalia was arguing federal courts have no authority to overturn a jury verdict for a state crime simply because they disagree with the jury's verdict. He put "actual innocence" in quotes for a reason (namely, that it is the opinion of a federal court). Only if the defendant's constitutional rights were in someway violated can a federal court step in.
I suggest you read the article that I linked to. From it: [rquoter]The legal definition of "actual innocence" is the absence of facts required to convict someone based on a criminal statute, according to the Legal Information Institute. Defendants appealing convictions seek to prove actual innocence by submitting new evidence that reverses the court's confidence in a past verdict.[/rquoter] Further while the article notes that the USSC had never made such a ruling even Rehnquist did see it as potentially troubling. [rquoter]But Rehnquist added that the execution of a defendant who has made a particularly strong demonstration of innocence could conceivably be considered unconstitutional. "We may assume ... that in a capital case a truly persuasive demonstration of 'actual innocence' made after trial would render the execution of a defendant unconstitutional and warrant federal habeas relief if there were no state avenue open to process such a claim," Rehnquist wrote in that decision. [/rquoter] Rehnquist, who was no liberal, understood that the execution of a defendant who proved actual innocence was a violation of constitutional rights that would be open for federal relief. The point is to show that Scalia's opinion is very troubling to most people who are actually interested in seeing justice carried out.
<iframe frameborder='0' width='512' height='330' scrollable='no' src='http://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?c4580879'></iframe>
Look, it's a supreme court justice getting a hearing! and a vote. And confirmed, with bipartisan support.
But wait...look...its a dumb a$$ that speaks to the wind...which ever direction it may blow... He is incredibly hypocritical. That being said, I would love for him to provide the Senate his list...And I would love the senate to remind President Obama of the very words he used in his rejection of Justice Alito...
With all due respect to the town of Sugarland (long may the town continue to do whatever it is that it does these days, processing sugar not being one of them, although I recall when they were still cranking that sweet stuff out in mass quantities), the kid clearly isn't old enough. Pity.
Not only was he confirmed, but no filibuster was ever attempted. But yes, this is where the thing, that you didn't do, that didn't have any effect, COMES BACK TO BITE YOU IN THE ASS You know what they say: Turnabout, for things that didn't happen, is fair play! It's like the old fable, about the Boy who cried wolf, only he never cried wolf, just a bunch of jerks came along and killed the sheep when nobody was looking because they are acting like giant douchebags and angry that they are too stupid/incompetent to get their own sheep.
That speech seems much faster paced than anything he does today. I think I only heard one "umm" and no "uhhs". WTF happened there? They need to check the WH for radon or something.
This. I suspect it is someone that has exceptional credentials and will put pressure on the Republicans to approve. Otherwise the Republicans are looking at having a lesbian, black woman that hates white people and is a socialist shoved down their throat.
Since he was never a trial judge, he never presided over a criminal case in his whole damned life, so really who cares?
what a small man our president is <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">White House: Obama will not attend Justice Scalia's funeral <a href="https://t.co/qr2hUqaibX">https://t.co/qr2hUqaibX</a> <a href="https://t.co/8E20svkoB4">pic.twitter.com/8E20svkoB4</a></p>— NBC News (@NBCNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/700038279316447232">February 17, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> this is virtue signaling to the left
This was in response to Hotballa's post that if you're arrested Scalia would be the best judge to appear before. It also shows how extreme Scalia's views were when even Rehquist saw it as problematic.
