How Can Justices Even Think In These Terms

[The Rabbi]

Have I said fed courts don't have the right or power to review constitutional questions? No, I have not. You are making that argument to me and that is not my point.

I say again...Barring judicial review, the feds have no right or authority to usurp their power over the respective states making any and all executions illegal in and of themselves, just because they want to.

The aforementioned is what the biased author of the article is wanting. It appears that is also the position of Grump.

I am not denying the XIV Amendment itself much less the proper use of such. I disagree with your interpretation and use of it. We have been over and over that issue. I am not going to change my mind on that anymore than you are.

Your opinion is dead wrong. Under Artice III, the SC has the ultimate authority of original jurisdiction and/or appellate on all matters consitutional. The issues that we are discussing is one of due process and cruel and unusual punishment, both of which belong to the Supreme Court.

The central question in both cases is the process.
When a State is given notice that a person tried, convicted, and sentenced to death may in fact be innocent, what steps (if any) is it required to take to ensure guilt before carrying out punishment?
You can argue death for the innocent is a cruel and unusual punishment, but that's the effect and not the cause. The cause is the process that allowed it to happen in the first place, and that's what those particular cases address.

You are of course right. But it is lost on Jake, King of the Unsubstantiated Statements. He is dead wrong here, suggesting that the USSC would have original jurisdiction here. That is absurd. Nor is it an issue of cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[saveliberty]

Should the constitution forbid execution of an innocent person?

Is this really a rough question?

Abortion on demand. Sort of complicates it huh?

 

[lawbuff]

A dissenting opinion, but one held by justices nonetheless

"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."

A case of innocence executed

The dissent was not from this case, but from the Davis case.

Dissent:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Scalia-opin-Davis.pdf


Opinion:


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/court-order-Davis.pdf

A 2254 state prisoner/custody HC/federal question Petition would normally be filed in the proper US District court after state remedies were exhausted, but Davis filed it directly with the USSC under rule 20, and they then directed it to the District court.

If denied, then the next level of appeal is that US Circuit court of appeals, then the SC again.


Scalia is a strange man at times. He made a comment, addressing a law school graduation class, I think, that Orgies should be encouraged, as they relieve sexual tension.

 

[lawbuff]

the Justices of our court have come to the conclusion that we should limit our docket to cases where there is a split between courts of appeals or state supreme courts on a question of federal law, where a federal or state statute is declared unconstitutional, or where the case involves a matter of obvious national importance.

I agree with him here!

I admire CJ Rehnquist, he ranks as one of the greatest of the 17, but John Marshall is the Master.

Until the law was changed many decades ago, the SC had to hear every case presented to it, and circuit ride, this was exhausting. Now they decide generally 80-100 a year.

Heck, Nevada does not even have an intermediate court of appeals, they all got to the NV SC.

State court decisions not based on federal law are not entertainable by the court.