Kazak_Hstan posted:

Fittingly enough, Scalia's final opinion for the court upheld a death sentence, albeit in an 8-1 decision:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-449_9o7d.pdf

quote:

“When we correct a state court’s federal errors, we return power to the State, and to its people.”

Periodiko posted:

I'm kind of sorry for opening this can of worms because I can't imagine it ending well, but I think it's a legit case of "liberal racism" that people constantly accuse Thomas of being some kind of incompetent toady for Scalia.

FAUXTON posted:

I want this to be chiseled into that motherfucker's headstone. I don't have any issue with the SCOTUS having the responsibility of correcting erroneous state interpretations of the constitution, albeit I think Kansas was right in blocking the killing of those prisoners, but saying you're empowering states by dropping a big sack of nopesauce on them is some toontown bullshit. pure applesauce.

Periodiko posted:

I'm kind of sorry for opening this can of worms because I can't imagine it ending well, but I think it's a legit case of "liberal racism" that people constantly accuse Thomas of being some kind of incompetent toady for Scalia. Like a weird attempt to defuse the difficulty of his being a black conservative by just saying he's a token idiot and a mere unthinking servant of a white man.

Justice Thomas posted:

“I know that people are going to go all off the rails when they find out my opinion on the Loving decision. It’s important to stress that I am not in favor of any sort of anti-miscegenation law. All I am saying is that if I had been on the court in ‘67 I would probably have decided that those laws are best left to the discretion of the states. At the time of that decision there were only 16 states that still had anti-miscegenation laws. If the court had found in favor of the Commonwealth of Virginia those laws would eventually all been repealed on a state by state basis. The reality is that all 16 of those states have abolished those laws, the last one was in Alabama in 2000. If the court had allowed the Virginia law to stand it would have only taken 33 years before inter-racial marriage would have been legal in all 50 states.”

Schizotek posted:

If the court had allowed the Virginia law to stand it would have only taken 33 years before inter-racial marriage would have been legal in all 50 states.”

Kibayasu posted:

https://twitter.com/BettyBowers/status/698639054003245056

Gyges posted:

How can you say with a straight face that since it took 33 years for Alabama to repeal a moot law they totally would have gotten around to it if the law wasn't ruled unconstitutional? Like, I could see you bullshitting that the South totally wouldn't be shitheads on something, bit to use Alabama as you example?

Skeesix posted:

Gyges posted:

How can you say with a straight face that since it took 33 years for Alabama to repeal a moot law they totally would have gotten around to it if the law wasn't ruled unconstitutional? Like, I could see you bullshitting that the South totally wouldn't be shitheads on something, bit to use Alabama as you example?

Periodiko posted:

I'm kind of sorry for opening this can of worms because I can't imagine it ending well, but I think it's a legit case of "liberal racism" that people constantly accuse Thomas of being some kind of incompetent toady for Scalia. Like a weird attempt to defuse the difficulty of his being a black conservative by just saying he's a token idiot and a mere unthinking servant of a white man.

alnilam posted:

I wonder what poor RBG is thinking (besides the fact that her friend is dead ). I always thought the popular belief was that she'd retire under Obama. If she retires now, maybe it will make the republicans look even more insane blocking TWO appointees for a whole year and leaving the court seriously understaffed, on the other hand meanwhile the court is left with a 4-3 conservative slant. If she retires at the end of this session, that obviates the latter issue but might mean the Senate doesn't have to block her successor quite as long before the election.

All the while she is getting old and probably wants to retire

ayn rand hand job posted:

Thomas isn't in favor using the court as a social policy cudgel, even if it would personally give him some sort of benefit.

He is a man who grew up in Georgia during Jim Crow as the son of poor farmers and managed to get himself into an Ivy League law school. He prefers the change to come via non-judicial means and is fairly principled in that regard.

Goatman Sacks posted:

Boy how noble of him!

ayn rand hand job posted:

It's more a word of caution of "don't pigeonhole Thomas" because it will only lead to madness.

FAUXTON posted:

I want this to be chiseled into that motherfucker's headstone. I don't have any issue with the SCOTUS having the responsibility of correcting erroneous state interpretations of the constitution, albeit I think Kansas was right in blocking the killing of those prisoners, but saying you're empowering states by dropping a big sack of nopesauce on them is some toontown bullshit.

Antonin loving Scalia posted:

Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.

Gyges posted:

I agree, there's only one Obama fit for the challenge

TinTower posted:

This quote might be better:

eviltastic posted:

I don't think it's an unfair summary of his jurisprudence, but he didn't actually say that.

TinTower posted:

This quote might be better:

“Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.”

quote:

LawReader user Barry Miller has brought to our attention a widely published misquote of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia. We have no idea how this quote arose, but upon review we conclude it is nothing more than an edited version and not the actual words of Scalia.

The following quote is widely published and is attributed to Justice Scalia:

“Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.”


The quote is attributed to the U.S. Supreme Court case of: Herrera v. Collins 506 US 390 1993 .


Miller called this issue to our attention, and we have investigated the facts, and we conclude that he is correct. Miller noted that he does not necessarily agree with Scalia, but he does feel he should be accurately quoted and quoted in context. We agree.



What Scalia did say was:
“There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.”
“My concern is that in making life easier for ourselves we not appear to make it harder for the lower federal courts, imposing upon them the burden of regularly analyzing newly-discovered-evidence-of-innocence claims in capital cases (in which event such federal claims, it can confidently be predicted, will become routine and even repetitive).”

Broken Machine posted:

He never quite said that though; there's a long detailed dissection of it here:

http://news.lawreader.com/2008/08/30/barry-miller-widely-published-scalia-quote-re-innocense-is-inaccurate-we-have-to-agree/

mcmagic posted:

That is no less horrible.

ayn rand hand job posted:

Thomas isn't in favor using the court as a social policy cudgel, even if it would personally give him some sort of benefit.

He is a man who grew up in Georgia during Jim Crow as the son of poor farmers and managed to get himself into an Ivy League law school. He prefers the change to come via non-judicial means and is fairly principled in that regard.

Arsenic Lupin posted:

This. There are lots of reasons to despise Thomas as an rear end in a top hat (I believe Anita Hill!) but he comes to his terrible conclusions using his own reasoning; he wasn't blindly voting with Scalia.

ayn rand hand job posted:

Thomas isn't in favor using the court as a social policy cudgel, even if it would personally give him some sort of benefit.

He is a man who grew up in Georgia during Jim Crow as the son of poor farmers and managed to get himself into an Ivy League law school. He prefers the change to come via non-judicial means and is fairly principled in that regard.