I would say the constitution does say just that as it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. When will Scalia die for us all?

Antonin Scalia is ill-suited for this period of history: he belongs in the Dark Ages.

Once again, Scalia, and his lap dog Clarence Thomas, have proven they are not fit to sit on the Supreme Court, nor any court, for that matter.

The very basis of American law is providing justice, and providing justice means not imprisoning or executing innocent people. Dotting every 'i' and crossing every 't' in a 'full and far trial' is not the point of our court system, according to the Constitution, but to provide full due process to prevent the innocent from suffering the fate of the guilty.

But, then, this is the same Scalia who found nothing wrong with the SC deciding an American presidential election in 2000 by illegally and without precedent overruling Florida state election law, the Florida Supreme Court, and the provisions of the Constitution which exclusively leaves the selection of the president to the states, the electoral college or Congress, so it's not surprising.

Scalia is said to be an avowed Catholic -- what part of "Thou shalt not kill" does he not understand?

Scalia is probably right that the 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. That will never happen, because if someone proves they're actually innocent in the latest legal arena they enter, to execute them anyway would be murder, as anyone, except maybe Scalia, would know.

to re-consider his case isn't the same as a pardon.
Keep those cards and letters going to Sonny Perdue.
As for the Catholics,,,talk about 'death pannels',,,they have made last rites a sacrament!

In my lifetime I have seen the principle, "Innocent until proven guilty", change in our system to "Guilty until proof of innocence". In Scalia's world if a person is not wealthy enough or powerful enough to establish innocence, tough sh*t.

Whatever the case, whatever the cause, if there is a wicked, cruel judgment possible, Scalia and Thomas will find it. They are wrong as constantly and surely as the earth's spinning.

Scalia is correct. Sadly. We are ideally a nation of laws. All those details that attempt to make justice do sometimes create injustice. This injustice needs to be corrected by congress.

Scalia is not all bad. He just has a very passionless few of the law. He doesn't seem to consider as a judge if people suffer unduly, just so long as a rigid interpretation of the constitution is upheld. Its good for a stability in legal decisions. Bad for a changing world.

One senses that Scalia is aware of the barbarous ruthlessness and malevolence of his statement, as harsh and draconian an example as one could conceive, and delights in the discomfiture it causes to the Little People, fka We the People.

To blithely assert that a person may be innocent in fact, but remain guilty in law and subject to its prescribed penalties, naturally shocks the conscience and offends reasonable, decent persons.

It is one thing that the Law must sometimes perforce be an Ass, but Scalia cheerfully affirms that the law may also be an Asp.

He's odious.

The next question is whether this unusual action by the SCOTUS was done to telegraph a desire that this case be resolved short of executing Davis.

I think it's a misstatement to characterize this evidentiary hearing as a last chance for Davis to "prove his innocence", at least not affirmatively. I'm not aware of any absolutely exculpatory evidence that can "prove" that he DIDN'T commit the crime; he can only hope to rebut the prosecution's shaky case by revisiting the testimony.

As far as I can tell, it's at best an order for the judge to review existing evidence and determine whether it would have exculpated Davis if it had been part of the original trial.

It doesn't seem to set aside the existing verdict or sentence. I haven't had a chance to read the actual SCOTUS order, but is the federal court being empowered to conduct-- you should pardon the expression-- a "sudden death" proceeding in which the judge either frees Davis or returns him to death row?

Court decisions, including the manner of disposition, typically convey a sense of the Court, especially in problematic cases. As I mentioned above, I hope that between the lines the Court is tacitly asking the lower authorities to AVOID the bitter conclusion so relished by Scalia, and that the lower authorities will take the hint.

Every time the Troy Davis can gets kicked down the road I hope for a just and swift conclusion to his ordeal.

· Yr Obd't Servant

"convicted defendant"

Would Scalia rule the same way if the "convicted defendant" was a member of his family or of someone else he cared about?

would scalia feel that way if the defendent was white?

I wonder if Scalia's bishop will consider excommunicating him for affirming that it's ok to execute innocent people?

Yow! Rhenquist Redux. 1993 (so&so vs. so&so) many pardons, old material the specific gentleman's name escapes but the facts of the case never will.

Texas had a state law that said that 72 hours after the handing down of a verdict was all the time the defendant had to introduce vindicating evidence. After that time limit go fish.

The defendant got his vindicating evidence 3 years too late.

Rhenquist writing for the majority made the argument that demonstration of innocence is not a bar to execution. And they killed him. As far as the animal was concerned, as long as the letter of the law had been fulfilled it was the right if not the requirement that the state kill him. (knowing full well that such laws would never be applied to him and his) At the time, the hair splitting arguments centered around "demonstration" and "proof". Now such arguments are moot. Aren't they.

And here we are. Killers and Torturers. And we make money from it.

If Scalia is a Catholic Christian then he should know that Jesus taught that whenever there was a question of following the rule of law or helping a person in need, Jesus always helped the person in need. Charity is the greatest of virtues not obedience to man made laws. I do not understand how any christian can be for the death penalty. It is beyond comprehension how anyone can be for killing an innocent man because fallible humans made a mistake and convicted him in court.In answer to the question,"What, if he is innocent we can't execute him?": No, morally you cannot execute him, Scalia. I hope the Supreme Court follows moral laws.

This is the same justass who suggested that waterboarding wasn't "punishment" because the suspects hadn't been convicted.

From reading the various statements by these learned judges it has long been apparent to me that they are so caught up in the process that the latter, like a wave, has taken on a life of its own and these rudderless judges surf and are swept along by it.

So, if a convicted person was undeniably innocent, as in the example of a supposedly murdered victim whose body was not found but who later turned up alive and well, then it would make no difference. The execution would be duly conducted according to process.
Scalia's comments seem to confirm this.

There is no peace without justice, and no justice if it is based on lies.

We don't live in a just society, it is run by heartless bastards intent on continuing to fund the filthy rich with our tax dollars and blood, no matter what the cost to the general public.

And this includes both the democratic party leadership along with the republican.

Until we vote third party for a candidate who supports peace and justice, we will continue to get more of the same.

Hmm. Scalia is right? He's dispassionate, but right on the law?

Let's just back up a sec, here, bub. First--the purpose of the law is not solely to enable the state for its own ends. The stated purpose of the law is the impartial fulfillment of justice. Killing an innocent man simply because the state met its minimum obligations of due process is in no way just.

More particularly, in this case, Scalia is selectively ignoring a number of Constitutional amendments which apply. First, it would be cruel and unusual punishment (8th) to put a known innocent to death, or a person for whom there is increasing doubt of guilt accumulated over time. That's the second principle here--5th Amendment--that due process is not some dance card that gets filled out and it's done. What due process guarantees is access to the courts. There's no time limit on it in the Constitution. The 6th amendment ensures that one can be confronted by witnesses against one and to obtain witnesses in his favor. If seven friggin' witnesses have recanted their testimony over time, and one witness perjured himself to evade responsibility for the crime, those are clearly 6th amendment issues and those rights, too, do not expire with time or with some accomplished minimum procedure, because, in effect, those witnesses who have recanted sworn testimony become witnesses for the defendant in a new trial. Further, the 7th amendment enables, through common law, a new trial when there's new and sufficient evidence, something else that Scalia chose to ignore.

What Scalia has consistently argued in such cases is the primacy of the state. The Bill of Rights were and are fundamental protections of the citizen against the power of the state. When Scalia effectively argues for the state's interests and presumes the infallibility of the state if process is followed in some pro forma fashion, he's betraying his other hobby horse--strict constructionist interpretation--because a strict originalist interpretation of the Bill of Rights is that the individual must be protected from state power because of its potential for abuse. The individual cannot be protected if his rights are ignored.

Buried deep down in this case is prosecutorial abuse, and that would likely become apparent in a new trial, given the new evidence available. Scalia is saying that there's no such thing as prosecutorial abuse or bias, as long as the bare bones of due process have been followed. In order to say something like that, one has to be a) indifferent to the Bill of Rights and its intent, b) philosophically determined to overlook the court's ancillary role in serving as a check on the executive, and, c) mad as a March hare.

What really drives me crazy about his words is ... "you know, if the constitution doesnt FORBID it ... it is OK".

Hell, the constitution does NOT forbid a lot of things. I am pretty sure that there is no paragraph in there that would explicitely FORBID to show up at a judges home and make him eat his dog. So lets go. I dont like dogs; and I dont like judges like Scalia too. Makes perfect sense for me. And just to make things just ... his other dog then eats Scalia.

Or maybe there are some "intrinsic" IDEAS inside the constitution. So you dont need to look for things that are NOT in there and think about the BASIC F*CKING IDEAS in there.

This leads to another thought: maybe he is right, and the constitution isnt forbidding it ... but it isnt DEMANDING such things, right?! Just because something might be done ... doesnt mean it needs to be done. Or should be done.

Ever thought about that, judge Scalia?

As Dicken's Mr. Bumble observed; "...the law is an ass, an idiot."

Scalia is delighted with any opportunity to make it so.

Likewise his henchman, Thomas, who's prevailing legal opinion is (pointing at Scalia), "What he said."

Then there was O'Connor who, fate having positioned to choose between democracy and monarchy, became kingmaker.

SCOTUS, another American beacon to the world.

Who needs ipecac?

"Actual innocence is no reason not to execute someone": does that mean that mister Scalia is in favour of the alleged 'death panels' and other forms of state-sanctioned murder? Adolf Hitler would have loved this man, he would have made a great replacement for Heinrich Himler.

"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from
occurring."

- Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, 1950

That's just life in the USSA.