Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
 |
|
 |
|
Scalia: It's Not Unconstitutional To Execute The Innocent - Democratic Underground
Guilty until proven innocent, and you're still dead meat!
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Maybe his priest should refuse to give him communion until he shapes up.
Ooops. I forgot. It's only a sin in the Catholic Church if you murder the unborn.
If you kill them once they are outside the womb, Jesus applauds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/9226
Wanted for Murder: Antonin Scalia
By Mark Karlin
-snip-
But as of just yesterday, August 17th, he also added state sanctioned murder to his list of crimes.
-snip-
In short, if attorney for Troy Anthony Davis can establish his innocence, he should be freed not put to death.
Makes sense, right?
Not for Mr. Scalia (or Mr.
Thomas).
-snip-
But, every person must be responsible for his or her actions -- that is what the law is all about, isn't it?
-- and when it comes down to Scalia as a man, he's just an accessory to murder wearing a black robe.
Tried by a D.C.
Jury, the guy would do less harm to the nation and innocent Americans if he were put behind bars himself.
***
it is a great commentary, and the comments after are very interesting.
In fact, you might want to re-post it separately
i just can't, but hope folks'll get to read it
thanks again!!
peace and solidarity, always!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tubby Tony - it is morally wrong.
How about that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By many people, including British jurist William Blackstone, and and our own Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, that it's better that many guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished.
One might say that, if one sees no harm in condemning the innocent, what value then is virtue?
At that point, just drawing breath might as well be considered a crime, and thus all men be punishable by the simple fact of being alive.
Guilt and innocence becomes then a roll of the die and justice no more than chance's whore.
It may not be unconstitutional, but it is clear that at least two of the founding fathers would have vehemently disagreed with it in principle.
edited because I waxed poetic and screwed up a word...
Figures, doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It suggests he actually understands NOTHING about intent and just wants to interject his own prejudices into the document.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scalia's problem is that he thinks he is smarter than anyone and that includes anyone that has come before him.
There used to be a show called 'Roundtable' on the public broadcasting channel where a group of people including lawyers, academics etc.
Would discuss different topics.
Scalia was on the show on a regular basis and seemed to enjoy being the odd man out when it came to expressing opinions.
I thought he was sort of crazy back then because some of his reasoning was to say the least convoluted and many times just didn't make any sense.
He had a tendency to take the attitude that it should be that way because he said so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I watched those same programs and my impression of Scalia has always been someone who's been cruising on a line of bullshit for far too long.
The guy may believe he's the legal equivalent of Stephen Hawking, but the truth is he has all the intellectual flexibility of a back-woods fundamentalist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
President Obama needs to get a real hardball justice person up there next appointment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We hold these truths to be self evident (hence it not having to be in the Constitution, guess they figured anyone who didn't have this one nailed down was a fucking moron) that we are each endowed by are creator (note the creator was not specified...
They could have meant their moms for all we know) with certain unalienable (thank the creator of spell check) rights.
And among these rights are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness...
Life...
Let's let that sink in shall we?
It is conceded that a guilty man may have his rights revoked upon conviction...
Imprisonment takes care of Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness is pretty hard to accomplish behind bars...
Even Life may be taken if the crime warrants it.
( I'm not making a death penalty case here so no flaming, at least not in the face.
I'm just laying things out as they are currently )
Of course, this is all based on the prerequisite of actual guilt.
It is self evident that unless a citizen of this country is proven to be guilty, his rights may not be infringed upon.
It is self evident that if the Constitution does not bar an innocents execution, then none of us are safe...
(And their worried about death panels from our side...)
It is self evident that Scalia does not posses the common sense necessary to sit in judgment of "America's Got Talent".
Let alone be entrusted with the responsibility to weigh in on issues being addressed by the highest court in the land.
I'm kind of hoping a certain wise Latina will call him on this bullshit and beat the holy hell out of him...
My Abuela sure as hell would..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Mere factual innocence is no reason to not carry out a death sentence properly reached"-Antonin Scalia
Yes, that is an actual Quote: .
I bet he gets an erection whenever he gets to deny a death penalty appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excuting an innocent?
Isn't he (Scalia) Catholic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He believes in the death penalty, and therefore that it should be carried out without undue
delay, regardless of innocence.
So to support his (repulsive) views Scalia deliberately and routinely
misstates, overstates, understates, and convolutes the law as a rhetorical (political) device.
And in doing so he fully demonstrates that he lacks the intellectual capacity, honesty,
compassion, or wisdom that should attend his high office.
Hes not a judge, he's political asswipe.
He is not fit for his office.
He should be removed.
OF course we recognize the principle he misstates.
A proper law (court order), legal on its face
and final, may be enforced without legal peril.
Even an execution order, even of the innocent.
That is fundamental to rule of law.
The law must be obeyed, of course.
That is the basis of the premise he misstates.
But that is not really the dispute.
He ignores
and refuses to give a millimeter to an even more powerful counterpoint.
What he omits is the opposing critical distinction, that execution of the innocent is a
monsterous moral wrong (as opposed to a legal wrong), and the entire structure of our
laws are IN FACT designed to practically safeguard against it.
If we cared not about factual innocence, we
would have no need of trials, the sheriff (of Xi) would , on allegation of wrongdoing,
be sent to your house to execute you on the spot, thus safeguarding the world against
your POSSIBLE wrongdoing.
While finality in law is a PRACTICAL necessity, the fair and just operation of law is likewise.
There is balance, not universal ascendancy of one principle over the other, as Scalia seeks to represent.
Balance, for otherwise we foster civil revolt where the bastards are finally rounded up and purged in a frenzy
of gillotine.
This is an unsightly and unnecessary consequence of because it would be easily avoided IF ONLY
we purged whackjobs like Scalia from the bench instead.
Yet we cannot be constantly retrying or reviewing cases on trivial pretext, however.
That would greatly subvert the rule of law.
Again, balance.
Thus once conviction occurs on evidence presented "beyond a reasonable doubt" and appeals have exhausted
a balance should (imho) shift to (possibly compelling) proof of actual innocence.
Scalia thinks this is not the
role of a judge or courts, he is again, as usual, being an iconoclastic whackout.
Big shock there.
This counterpoint is expecially important in death penalty cases where the "finality" is
truly final and irreversible.
This is a fundamental evil of the death penalty, however otherwise popular.
Thus it is that where there is (some high level of credible evidence)
that raises grave doubt a miscarriage of justice has occured, that through defect in structure or method of legal process,
by corruption or perjured or planted evidence, a person who is actually innocent is to be executed, it is necessary to
have a procedure to free the innocent, irrespective of so-called finality.
Scalia doesn't believe in such a a thing, has fought
long against such process during early stages of appeal.
I haven't read the opinion.
Fuck Scalia's opinion.
Whatever he said, I ignore, even where he writes for
a majority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thousands in Iraq.
He should be impeached for being insane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|