Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? - 6/15/2010 11:38:44 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		Catching up on reading recent SCOTUS rulings I found this case:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/16/1682781/test-of-justice.html

In brief a convicted killer's lawyer simply abandoned him failing to notify him of the status of his appeals and failing to file his federal Habeus Corpus appeal at all.

Thankfully the SCOTUS, by a 7-2 decision, has decided that an inmate shall not be killed due to his lawyer refusing to do what he was supposed to do.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-5327.ZO.html

Now we come to the inexplicable part. The 2 dissenting "justices" Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. They hold that it was completely the fault of the inmate that his lawyer completely ignored his many instructions to file his appeal on a timely basis. They seem unconcerned that the state appointed attorney in this case would deny this man access to the appeals process based solely on either his incompetence, personal animus or laziness. Scalia even includes a sweeping insult of legal ethicists in his dissent.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-5327.ZD.html

Profile   Post #: 1
RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? - 6/15/2010 11:53:00 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline 		Scalia is a neo-fascist and Thomas is his lemming.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? - 6/16/2010 12:15:57 AM   
Brain


Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline 		Religion. Religion. Religion. They are brainwashed with it and it’s irrational logic – it results in perverted, distorted, unclear decisions. This guy has the right idea. I can do without Scalia/Thomas bunk.

To replace John Paul Stevens, an atheist

It's something Thomas Jefferson might have done: nominate a nonbeliever to the Supreme Court

May 04, 2010|Marc Cooper
As President Obama considers nominees to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, a debate bubbles as to whether religion should play a role in his choice.

This is a no-brainer. The religious views of the next justice of the high court must absolutely be a decisive factor.

Though the court without Stevens will be left with six Catholics and two Jews, the open seat should not go to either domination. Nor should it go to a Presbyterian, a Lutheran, a Methodist, a Muslim or even a Zoroastrian. If it did, that would make nine people who all have one religious principle in common: a belief in religion.

Clearly, the next person to take the bench should be an atheist.

While few sitting politicians have the political courage to name a declared nonbeliever, it is something that Thomas Jefferson (and several others among the founders) might well have done.

In an 1823 letter to John Adams, Jefferson was forthright about his views of religion, and Christianity specifically. "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter," Jefferson wrote. "But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors."

In other words, Jefferson liked what Jesus, the man, stood for, but could definitely do without the rest of the bunk.

That's right. Bunk. There aren't a lot of us, but something like one out of six Americans calls himself a nonbeliever. Holy moly! That means we would still be underrepresented with just one justice. But those of us who refuse to subscribe to any religious hocus-pocus would be happy to take what we can get in a country where seemingly no politician, from either party, can resist the temptation of ending a speech with the empty phrase "God bless America."

It's rather staggering to consider that more than two centuries after our Constitution codified the absolute separation of church and state, we've never had a single top court justice who was an atheist. The closest we ever got were a handful of Unitarians. Close but no cigar.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/04/opinion/la-oe--cooper-20100504



(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? - 6/16/2010 1:32:49 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		In that same letter Jefferson also wrote...


Dear Sir, — The wishes expressed, in your last favor, that I may continue in life and health until I become a Calvinist, at least in his exclamation of `mon Dieu! jusque à quand'! would make me immortal. I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Dæmonism.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Brain)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? - 6/16/2010 4:32:29 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

Clearly, the next person to take the bench should be an atheist.


So they shouldn't look at the experience or education? Base the decision solely on whether or not they believe in a god?

Why am I not surprised you think this is a good idea?


_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to Brain)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? - 6/16/2010 5:44:28 AM   
TreasureKY


Posts: 3032
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

... They seem unconcerned that the state appointed attorney in this case would deny this man access to the appeals process ...


Where a State is constitutionally obliged to provide an attorney but fails to provide an effective one, the attorney’s failures ... are chargeable to the State, not to the prisoner. ... But where the client has no right to counsel—which in habeas proceedings he does not—the rule holding him responsible for his attorney’s acts applies with full force.

This was clearly addressed.  Because of that, I'd hardly claim that Scalia and Thomas seemed unconcerned.  You simply do not agree with them. 

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? - 6/16/2010 8:35:16 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

... They seem unconcerned that the state appointed attorney in this case would deny this man access to the appeals process ...


Where a State is constitutionally obliged to provide an attorney but fails to provide an effective one, the attorney’s failures ... are chargeable to the State, not to the prisoner. ... But where the client has no right to counsel—which in habeas proceedings he does not—the rule holding him responsible for his attorney’s acts applies with full force.

This was clearly addressed.  Because of that, I'd hardly claim that Scalia and Thomas seemed unconcerned.  You simply do not agree with them. 


Scalia is wrong here. The state is required to provide and pay for an appeals attorney under the rules laid down by SCOTUS in previous rulings. This state provided counsel then failed to do what his client directed him to do. He is saying quite clearly that he would be ok with a state providing appelate lawyers to capital inmates who were specifically employed by the state to not file the inmates appeals which would make a mockery of the rules laid down by SCOTUS under which the death penalty was allowed to resume.

< Message edited by DomKen -- 6/16/2010 8:38:27 AM >

(in reply to TreasureKY)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? - 6/16/2010 8:41:20 AM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		You do not have a right to a perfect trial.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? - 6/16/2010 3:24:23 PM   
TreasureKY


Posts: 3032
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Scalia is wrong here. The state is required to provide and pay for an appeals attorney under the rules laid down by SCOTUS in previous rulings. This state provided counsel then failed to do what his client directed him to do. He is saying quite clearly that he would be ok with a state providing appelate lawyers to capital inmates who were specifically employed by the state to not file the inmates appeals which would make a mockery of the rules laid down by SCOTUS under which the death penalty was allowed to resume.


Hmmm.... 

So, either you or two of the Supreme Court Judges, don't fully understand the law and its application. 

You'll have to forgive me if I lend more weight to the opinions of the Judges in this area.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? - 6/16/2010 5:46:05 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		You, as well as Scalia and Thomas, would be well served to read the majority opinion from Furman v Georgia and Gregg v Georgia.

(in reply to TreasureKY)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? - 6/16/2010 6:25:17 PM   
AnimusRex


Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
Where a State is constitutionally obliged to provide an attorney but fails to provide an effective one, the attorney’s failures ... are chargeable to the State, not to the prisoner. ... But where the client has no right to counsel—which in habeas proceedings he does not—the rule holding him responsible for his attorney’s acts applies with full force.



A-ha....and with this slender thread of lawyeristic logic*, a man can be put to death, guilty or innocent.


Justice!




*and by "logic", I mean Bizzarro World in which a layman is held accountable for the actions of a professionally trained lawyer; the same world in which if your mechanic screws up your brakes, its your fault, because, well,...fuck you, thats why.

(in reply to TreasureKY)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? - 6/16/2010 8:16:16 PM   
TreasureKY


Posts: 3032
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex


quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
Where a State is constitutionally obliged to provide an attorney but fails to provide an effective one, the attorney’s failures ... are chargeable to the State, not to the prisoner. ... But where the client has no right to counsel—which in habeas proceedings he does not—the rule holding him responsible for his attorney’s acts applies with full force.



A-ha....and with this slender thread of lawyeristic logic*, a man can be put to death, guilty or innocent.


No.  A guilty man can be put to death, if so sentenced.

(in reply to AnimusRex)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? - 6/16/2010 8:34:06 PM   
Brain


Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline 		Of course they should look at experience and education AFTER finding an atheist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

Clearly, the next person to take the bench should be an atheist.


So they shouldn't look at the experience or education? Base the decision solely on whether or not they believe in a god?

Why am I not surprised you think this is a good idea?



(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? - 6/16/2010 8:45:25 PM   
eihwaz


Posts: 367
Joined: 10/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex
quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
Where a State is constitutionally obliged to provide an attorney but fails to provide an effective one, the attorney’s failures ... are chargeable to the State, not to the prisoner. ... But where the client has no right to counsel—which in habeas proceedings he does not—the rule holding him responsible for his attorney’s acts applies with full force.

A-ha....and with this slender thread of lawyeristic logic*, a man can be put to death, guilty or innocent.

No.  A guilty man can be put to death, if so sentenced.

Were this the majority opinion, it would have the force of law in future similar cases.  It is possible -- if past is any guide -- that a future defendant subject to the decision might be innocent.

< Message edited by eihwaz -- 6/16/2010 8:49:01 PM >

(in reply to TreasureKY)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? - 6/16/2010 8:49:28 PM   
heartcream


Posts: 3044
Joined: 5/9/2007
From: Psychoalphadiscobetabioaquadoloop
Status: offline 		Fuck Jefferson. For all the apparent good he did he kept Sally Hemmings a slave and did not recognize the children she bore him but was kind enough to let them go and not hunt them down. Fuck Jefferson.

_____________________________

"Exaggerate the essential, leave the obvious vague." Vincent Van Gogh

I'd Rather Be With You

Every single line means something.
Jean-Michel Basquiat



(in reply to eihwaz)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? - 6/16/2010 9:09:49 PM   
FatDomDaddy


Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline 		FR...

Ken...

I am an opponent of the Death Penalty. I could give you any number of valid reasons, most of which you will likely agree with me on.
But surely... you are not so naive that you think a highly competent appellate attorney in a death penalty case (how else would they have been appointed?) would not collude to malpractice in order to stop a sentence do you???

(in reply to heartcream)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? - 6/16/2010 9:11:36 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Scalia is wrong here. The state is required to provide and pay for an appeals attorney under the rules laid down by SCOTUS in previous rulings. This state provided counsel then failed to do what his client directed him to do. He is saying quite clearly that he would be ok with a state providing appelate lawyers to capital inmates who were specifically employed by the state to not file the inmates appeals which would make a mockery of the rules laid down by SCOTUS under which the death penalty was allowed to resume.


Hmmm.... 

So, either you or two of the Supreme Court Judges, don't fully understand the law and its application. 

You'll have to forgive me if I lend more weight to the opinions of the Judges in this area.



Why?

Are you suggesting that Supreme Court Justices, by virtue of their appointments, have some superior legal knowledge not accessible to the rest of the population?

(in reply to TreasureKY)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? - 6/16/2010 9:13:14 PM   
FatDomDaddy


Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline 		No, only the liberal ones...

< Message edited by FatDomDaddy -- 6/16/2010 9:17:33 PM >

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? - 6/16/2010 9:18:45 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

No only the liberal ones...


Another brilliant response FDD, keep up the good work.


(in reply to FatDomDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? - 6/16/2010 9:55:19 PM   
FatDomDaddy


Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline 		Hit a nerve did I???

(in reply to domiguy)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094