[Drabdr]

How much will the Supreme Court be getting involved with Death Row cases now?

Not sure how many of you have been following this one, but kind of interesting. The guy is found guilty, but... as of late, several witnesses recant their testimony.

http://www.law.com/jsp/scm/PubArticl...Inmates_Claims

Now... Scalia seems to be taking some heat for the out of context snippet below:

From Scalia's dissent:

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted de-fendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.

Should the Court be getting involved with this one? Is Scalia correct?

Or... should every Death Penalty case be reviewed by the Supreme Court?

And... what about the State of Georgia? Isn't this their problem, and why is this in the Supreme Court's lap? Should the citizens of Georgia be doing something about it?

[Drabdr]

Note the ad at the side of TechGuy forum. Interesting, as I did not mention his name anywhere in the post, yet the Google ads mined it that well.

[ekim68]

Scalia is both a genius and a lunatic, IMO.....There's been a huge grassroots effort to have a retrial for him. I'll have to read more on it..

[Drabdr]

Me? Scalia is a genius.

While I think that the wording of the out-of-context sentence could have been better, his point is well taken. Why is the Supreme Court getting involved on this one? Why now? They never have before.

Why have a lower court system, if the Supreme Court is going to come in and rule on everything?

As far as the case itself.... I don't know. So you have these witnesses who are recanting their testimony. So they either lied under oath then, or lying under oath now. If it's now, I could understand-no one wants to sleep at night knowing they helped put someone to death.

If they lied then, why? There had to be some reason why they all conspired to lie. That reason (I figure at least) would be "significant" and compelling enough to order a new trial. But it does not appear to exist. In Scalia's words, there's nothing new under the sun here.

I guess States Rights (that which Scalia is arguing here) is a thing of the past. States aren't responsible for anything; big brother Federal Government will come in and take things over (like they did here).

So... I think Scalia was right on this one, by stating the Supreme Court had no grounds to be getting involved. Sadly, in the age of Federal Government handling everything, he was in the minority.

[thingamajig]

None of this would be at issue if we should, as I believe, abolish the death penalty. Moral issues aside, the innocence project adds substance to my belief.

While I don't think the Supreme Court should have to waste their time deciding guilt or innocence, I disagree with Scalia. From Section 9 of the constitution:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

[Drabdr]

Hi thingy!

Originally Posted by thingamajig

None of this would be at issue if we should, as I believe, abolish the death penalty. Moral issues aside, the innocence project adds substance to my belief.

I can respect people against the Death Penalty. But it is a States Right to do that. If Georgia is going to impose it, Georgia needs to take extra care in dealing with the process. They are not, here; IMHO. That's Scalia's gripe.

If this person should be entitled to a new trial, why is the State not handling it? Where is the pressure on the State? Why.... does the Federal Gov't now have to handle everything??

Originally Posted by thingamajig

While I don't think the Supreme Court should have to waste their time deciding guilt or innocence, I disagree with Scalia. From Section 9 of the constitution:

But where has this person been denied? Scalia states, there is insufficient evidence here that under the constitution, the individual has been denied his Due Process rights.

Whether you agree with the Death Penalty or not, you darn well better have a good system in place to assure all cases are reviewed multiple times. Scalia does not see where there was a problem with the original jury and the case, and even states all this has been looked over upteen trillion times. There's nothing new, is there?

With this decision, essentially every Death Penalty case can appeal to the Supreme Court.

[thingamajig]

Originally Posted by Drabdr

I can respect people against the Death Penalty. But it is a States Right to do that. If Georgia is going to impose it, Georgia needs to take extra care in dealing with the process. They are not, here; IMHO. That's Scalia's gripe.

If this person should be entitled to a new trial, why is the State not handling it? Where is the pressure on the State? Why.... does the Federal Gov't now have to handle everything??

The Supreme Court is there to intercede when a person's due process rights are being denied by the state. Why must the court get involved? True democracies fail. The media can leave us brain dead to the rights of many. IMO (and I've lived there), the entire state of GA is a lynch mob.

Originally Posted by Drabdr

But where has this person been denied? Scalia states, there is insufficient evidence here that under the constitution, the individual has been denied his Due Process rights.

Wasn't that what the Supreme Court was asked to decide? Scalia didn't think so, but his statement "out of context" about the constitution was dead wrong IMO.

Originally Posted by Drabdr

Whether you agree with the Death Penalty or not, you darn well better have a good system in place to assure all cases are reviewed multiple times. Scalia does not see where there was a problem with the original jury and the case, and even states all this has been looked over upteen trillion times. There's nothing new, is there?

Sometimes a new observer is required to see the forest in place of the trees. So Scalia disagreed - that's why his opinion was called dissent.

Originally Posted by Drabdr

With this decision, essentially every Death Penalty case can appeal to the Supreme Court.

Good. Then it will become so burdensome they might just rule that due process is always violated in a death penalty case. I say that if an issue is important enough to swamp the court, it's important enough to deal with once and for all.

[Drabdr]

Originally Posted by thingamajig

The Supreme Court is there to intercede when a person's due process rights are being denied by the state. Why must the court get involved? True democracies fail. The media can leave us brain dead to the rights of many. IMO (and I've lived there), the entire state of GA is a lynch mob.

Again... no evidence that Due Process has been denied by the State, is there? We have no idea what all was presented at that court. The people who have looked at it have ruled there's nothing new.

As to your opinions about GA, you probably are right. Which may be why the other justices ruled the way they did, here.

Originally Posted by thingamajig

Wasn't that what the Supreme Court was asked to decide? Scalia didn't think so, but his statement "out of context" about the constitution was dead wrong IMO.

So the Supreme Court should review every single case the States rule on now, because the states are too stupid to take care of business?

Originally Posted by thingamajig

Good. Then it will become so burdensome they might just rule that due process is always violated in a death penalty case. I say that if an issue is important enough to swamp the court, it's important enough to deal with once and for all.

Our constitution was written to give the power and authority to the states. The State of Georgia and its governor is solely responsible for making sure this man gets a fair shake. If the State of Georgia wants the Death Penalty, they need to belly up and take care of business. If they don't, take it off the table.

It's not like we have something objective, like a DNA test or something with some substance. A couple of people change their story, and so now, we have to set the entire system on its side.

You have to have the Moses Plan. Everything can't go to Moses. He needs to appoint people under him, and people under those people, etc. to take care of business.

[ekim68]

Originally Posted by Drabdr

Me? Scalia is a genius.

Well I guess that's how he recused himself from that case involving his friend Cheney about seven years ago. (Not very Supreme Courtish, IMO...I hope he has progressed...

[Drabdr]

Originally Posted by ekim68

Well I guess that's how he recused himself from that case involving his friend Cheney about seven years ago. (Not very Supreme Courtish, IMO...I hope he has progressed...

Which case?