Jack & Jill Politics

Instead of, completely, misinterpreting Scalia, maybe some should be responsible enough to read his opinion. Here it is:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads…

Then, read the last paragraph of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's concurrence in Herrera on this issue, below. As well as her entire concurrence at

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328…

“Ultimately, two things about this case are clear. First is what the Court does not hold. Nowhere does the Court state that the Constitution permits the execution of an actually innocent person. Instead, the Court assumes for the sake of argument that a truly persuasive demonstration of actual innocence would render any such execution unconstitutional and that federal habeas relief would be warranted if no state avenue were open to process the claim. Second is what petitioner has not demonstrated. Petitioner has failed to make a persuasive showing of actual innocence. Not one judge–no state court judge, not the District Court Judge, none of the three Judges of the Court of Appeals, and none of the Justices of this Court–has expressed doubt about petitioner's guilt. Accordingly, the Court has no reason to pass on, and appropriately reserves, the question whether federal courts may entertain convincing claims of actual innocence. That difficult question remains open. If the Constitution's guarantees of fair procedure and the safeguards of clemency and pardon fulfill their historical mission, it may never require resolution at all.”

Can you provide a link to the case, whereby the prosecutors argued “We have a leagl right to frame innocent people”? I didn't think so.

Morphous:

A lot of folks misinterpret that.

Scalia and O'Connor are both referring to the entire Court. They are both correct that the Court has never so forbidden.

Per O'Connor: “Accordingly, the Court has no reason to pass on, and appropriately reserves, the question whether federal courts may entertain convincing claims of actual innocence. That difficult question remains open. If the Constitution's guarantees of fair procedure and the safeguards of clemency and pardon fulfill their historical mission, it may never require resolution at all.”

You wrote: “Justice Scalia's revelation that it is NOT unconstitutional to executed an innocent, there isn't much need for discussion is there?”

You misinterpret. What they are saying is that the Court has not ruled on that issue, yet. They haven't forbidden or accepted the issue. It hasn't been ruled on.

You left out the next sentence in Scalia's quote, which is: “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.”

“unresolved”

I suspected that you made up that prosecutors stated that “We have a legal right to frame innocent people”.

They can't say they “have a legal right to frame innocent people.”, because no such right exists, obviously. That is why I knew you were in errors. Rights have to be given and promulgated.

The quote from the article, which I have no way of knowing is accurate, states: “Lawyers for the two prosecutors counter that there is no constitutional right “not to be framed.”

There is no claim that there is a “right” to “frame innocent people”. I knew that wasn't the case, that is why I challenged you.

What there lawyer is saying, in slightly different language, is that there is no specific language in the constitution which says it is unconstitutional “to be framed.”

Legally, what you “wrongly” said and what is “actually” being argued are very different points.

The legal problem for these a-holes is that there is a whole bunch of things not said in the constitution – that doesn't mean that something is constitutional ONLY because it isn't specifically prohibited in the constitution.

It is a stupid legal point which will not win the case for them and for which SCOTUS will beat the dickens out of them in the opinion, IF they don't think it is too stupid to respond to and IF this article is accurate. Hard to imagine that stupid of an argument. But . . .

The real issue in this case is if such an incredible violation is protected by sovereign immunity. For a whole bunch of reasons, I can't imagine how SCOTUS will vote on this one, particulalry, without reading all of the arguements. I have a guess.

Morphus, I properly corrected your errors and explained the issues. It was not legal parsing. Your claims were in error. Words really do matter.

I don't know the Banks case, but if you are interpreting it in the same manner as you did on these other cases, I bet you need to re read the decsions.

“I suspected that you made up that prosecutors stated that “We have a legal right to frame innocent people”".

(Lawyers for the two prosecutors counter that there is no constitutional right “not to be framed.” )

WITHOUT legal parsing, prosecutors lawyer's arguments can simply be interpreted “they believe that prosecutors are untouchable”. Other than Nifong, rampant prosecutor misconduct without action creates appearance of absolute immunity. In Pennsylvania crooked judges are now asserting their judicial immunity, again, the average person is left to wonder.

“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.”

What do you think the justices were considering in the case of Delma Banks in Texas? Delma has been scheduled to be executed 15 times. In March 2003, he came within 10 minutes of being killed before the U.S. Supreme Court granted him a stay.