Quite frankly, the notion that the fight to present evidence of innocence had to be taken all the way to the Supreme Court is alarming.
But what I find outrageous is the logic that Justice Scalia used in his dissent. Here it is, in part:
Are you fucking joking?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...
Today, without explanation and without any meaningful guidance, this Court sends the District Court for the Southern District of Georgia on a fool's errand.
This is not just a lack of compassion we're seeing from Scalia, it's an indifference to justice.
I mean, who did Scalia study law under?
What's offensive, more than anything else is Scalia's use of quote marks around the word actually. Scalia believes that evidence that shows "actual" innocence irrelevant and I find that more than shocking. It's terrifying.
To Scalia, legal innocence is more important than "actual" innocence.
In response to Scalia's screed Stevens wrote:
That much should be obvious and it saddens me that it has to be said at all.Without briefing or argument, he concludes that Congress chose to foreclose relief and that the Constitution permits this. But imagine a petitioner in Davis's situation who possesses new evidence conclusively and definitively proving, beyond any scintilla of doubt, that he is an innocent man. The dissent's reasoning would allow such a petitioner to be put to death nonetheless. The Court correctly refuses to endorse such reasoning.
By the way, Justice Scalia how big did you say the fisty-dildo your mom used to use on you was?
And if any of you care, right now I'm listening to:
No comments:
Post a Comment