Tweet
Unlike the other justices, Justice Scalia
is a big fan of accessorizing his judicial robes
Justice Scalia most certainly does not appreciate Troy Davis getting in the way of his process:
The decision set off a sharp debate between Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia about Supreme Court procedure, the reach of a federal law meant to limit death row appeals and the proper treatment of claims of innocence.
“The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death,” Justice Stevens wrote in a concurrence joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, “clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing.”
Justice Scalia, in a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, said the hearing would be “a fool’s errand,” because Mr. Davis’s factual claims were “a sure loser.”
He went on to say that the federal courts would be powerless to assist Mr. Davis even if he could categorically establish his innocence.
“This court has never held,” Justice Scalia wrote, “that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”
I believe that in legal nomenclature Justice Scalia is what is known as a "big fucking asshole."
I also believe that the day will come when Justice Sotomayor will write in a majority opinion: "We respectfully disagree with Justice Scalia’s dissent and suggest that he go eat a bag of dicks."
25 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About TBogg
RSS/XML Feed
yeah .. and you need to check out the Gog and Magog post over to mc clatchy new’s spooks n nukes blog …
OMG !!! but .. do we really want laws preventing the execution of innocent people .. ??
and in legal jargon .. that’d be maximus XXL assholus
Link please.
Cobernicus, here’s the link to “Nukes & Spooks” at McClatchy. As far as what Jkat was referring to, it’s a mystery to me.
i am really looking forward to the day when that bronx chica kicks the ass of that fat fucking queens guido.
oh yeah, it’s gonna happen….
In a perfect world this would happen — Scalia would then needs to quit due to tertiary embarrassment.
here’s the specific link.
Well, Gog and Magog don’t have much to do with the Supremes, unless you think one of them is Gog. Or Magog. But who wants to pass up an opportunity to bash Bush? Not me.
That’s what I found. Must be a spoof.
Wow. Americans do not have a constitutional right to life. Who knew? God, I can’t wait for Sotomayor to jump into the mix and scare the shit out of the cowardly, sniveling, pussilanimous assholes.
“This court has never held,” Justice Scalia wrote, “that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”
You’d expect that a normal judge, or a normal human being for that matter, would then write, “And it’s about fucking time we did!” But sadly, no.®
There seems to be an obscure provision in the constitution, which must have escaped Justice Scalia’s keen legal eye, prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishment.” Seems to me executing innocent peole qualifies as “cruel and unusual.”
Ah, but the Constitution doesn’t specifically state that the innocent shall not be executed so strict constructionist Scalia combines that with the “they don’t feel a thing” regime of our executions and decides that killing innocent people is perfectly okay. Would that I had the time and money to frame the fat bastard for a murder he didn’t commit if only to hear him bleat that it isn’t fair.
Oh, pish posh. Details-schmetails. What does that matter to sociopaths like Scalia?
DennisSGMM, I’ll help you. I got some spare time on my hands.
TBoggs, love the caption under the photo. Scalia does an excellent imitation of the Grim Reaper!
Scalia is careful to avoid saying that the convicted person is “actually innocent.” He says only that the convicted person can convince a habeas court that he is “actually innocent.” Damned habeas courts will believe anything these days.
Ah, what the hell? Put the execution on teevee. Call it “America Condemned” hosted by Tom “Twinkletoes” Delay with Antonin “Guido” Scalia as the Hangman. Ratings bonanza. After all, public executions are all the rage throughout the civilized world.
Note the scare quotes around “actually”. He’s an intellectual bully who gets off browbeating people, not the legal scholar he thinks he is. He’ll go down in history as nothing more than a political hack.
The (former) Eighth Amendment don’t mean any more than a bucket of warm spit (like Joe Biden)since the Three Brave Senators (Flopsy, Mopsy and teh gai one)went to the WH and legitimized water boarding. At’s why Obamco is still running a concentration camp with torture chambers in Cuba while they still harvest our phone conversations here. Git with the program there, Rip Van Winkle.
Itz also true – beyond peradventure – that while we’ve been screaming for Sotomayor, she’s actually a pretty conservative, traditional judge. She’s not gonna close Guantanomo by herself (obviously) and would not likely try if she could. Ya won’t see a dissent from her when the SCROTUS denies cert on that one.
Chicago Sun-Times reporting Bob Novak, columnist and traitor, is dead.
There’ll be marshmallow roasts in hell tonight!
This reminds me of an episode from the Simpsons.
It seems to me that the prohibition against “Cruel and Unusual Punishment” would apply in this case since common sense would tell us that the death penalty for being innocent of charges might be considered, at a minimum, unusual if not, in fact, downright cruel.
Oh wait… we’re talking about Scalia and Thomas here.
Dear Dr.
Sorry I didn’t read your post before making mine.
Department of Redundancy Department.
yah .. it’s most likely ..prolly definitely ..a spoof .. but excellent fodder for a hand like TBogg ..imo .. and so help me gawd .. i can never get the link thingy here at FDL to work for me ..so i don’t even bother any more ..
thanks for the help y’all [you know who you are]
and yesh .. the gog and magog post was teh specific item i was trying to give a heads-up on
There seems to be an obscure provision in the constitution, which must have escaped Justice Scalia’s keen legal eye, prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishment.” Seems to me executing innocent peole qualifies as “cruel and unusual.”
Scalia is an “originalist” where Constitutional interpretation is concerned (except when it suits his purpose not to be). Thus, in his world “cruel and unusual” means what it did in 1789, when “cruel and unusual” punishments included stuff like drawing and quartering, disembowelling, and burning at the stake. Executing the innocent? No problemo…
SCOTUS is strictly required to follow legislative intent, i.e. the context expressly articulated by the Legislature when discussing the bill in session before passing it into law.
So it’s simple, that means all Congress has to do is include some statement in the Congressional Record like, ”We expressly intend that NO ’actually’ innocent people WHATSOEVER be executed in enforcing this Act.” Just to tie the hands of authoritarian weasels like Big Tony.
(Even though Scalia’s a Good Catholic(TM), he thinks the Vatican can suck it when they say the death penalty is wrong. In America. Because everyone knows we’re exceptional, yaknow.)
”Of course those who deny the authority of a government to exact vengeance are not entirely logical.” — Antonin Scalia
Or to paraphrase another comparable jurist: An innocent man has no right to life that a man of the Right need respect.