Discussion for article #240962
So says the SC’s most reverent Catholic. He has a chance this weekend to ask Pope Frank what to do. But he won’t, as he is just another Cafeteria Catholic of the type he fulminates against.
12 Likes
From a practical point of view, the death penalty is pretty stupid. It does not effectively deter crime; it costs more to execute someone than to jail them for life, and it is more about revenge than anything else.
I am not opposed to the death penalty entirely. I feel that there are some crimes where a person should be executed for committing, but the number of instances where I feel that it is appropriate is so negligible as to make it effectively non-existent.
6 Likes
This idiot is the gift that keeps on giving:
“Scalia added that he believes that the Constitution allows for the death penalty as long as there is a fair trial.”
So Mr. Strict Constitutional Interpretation where in the text of this “dead” document does it explicitly state that the death penalty is permissible so long as their is a fair trial. I recall reading something about cruel and unusual punishment during my first year Con Law class.
Con law experts help me out…doesn’t this statement disqualify him from hearing this issue if it’s ever brought before the Supreme Court? (i.e. - constitutionality of the death penalty)
3 Likes
due process of law – you cannot take “life” without due process of law, which includes a fair trial … that’s pretty explicit. It is harder to say that the death penalty in every case is cruel & unusual though I personally think it is (and that in practice it is applied unfairly for due process purposes overall)
4 Likes
I don’t think they will – Justice Kennedy will continue to support the death penalty though his vote was key in narrowing the cases where it could be applied. But, he doesn’t want to go all the way there.
Scalia is kinda right with the “four” statement though in the Glossip case only Breyer and Ginsburg explicitly said they thought it probably was unconstitutional. The other two didn’t sound that enthusiastic about it but did not join Breyer’s dissent that went that far.
Could someone explain how a person can be militantly anti-choice, and at the same time, viciously pro death penalty? How do they square that in their heads?
4 Likes
First, the scope is quite different – there were under 1500 executions since 1960, which is more like the number of abortions that might be performed in a single day. Second, killing heinous murderers (and even with mistakes, most of these people tend to be horrible) is different than killing what they deem innocent human life. Finally, Scalia is okay with states having the power to do both.
Anti-death penalty, pro-choice here btw. But, I don’t think it that hard to figure.
During his speech, Scalia also criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, called the decision “extreme.”
When your an extremist everything seems…
To paraphrase the Talmud, “From your mouth to Kennedy’s ears.”
3 Likes
God help us if he starts tweeting a la Trump.
@TheRealFatTony. Kennedy is a flibbertygibbet turncoat loser.
@TheRealFatTony. There is nothing but the text. Suck on that liberal cretin scum.
3 Likes
Pentalty?
What the hell is a “Pentalty”???
That’s when you’re drawn and quartered, with an extra bit thrown in to make five.
6 Likes
It is all about control and killing people.
They oppose contraception and abortion because they don’t want women to have unauthorized sex without consequences. And forcing the women to bear a child for 9 months gives them a boner.
Executing people is the biggest power trip of all. I fully expect that we will eventually discover that George W. Bush used to listen to executions alone in the governor’s office with the door closed so he could spunk off while it happened. When Saddam Hussein was executed, Bush stated he was in bed with Laura having an early night.
If you think these people couldn’t stoop so low then you haven’t being paying attention.
3 Likes
It was something of a rhetorical question.
2 Likes
But all the overturned convictions, and DNA analysis, and the recent FBI admission that a major source of evidence was shockingly flawed, as well as the clearly racially biased imposition of the death penalty points to the fact that there isn’t a fair trial.
Even by Scalia’s standards you need to be willfully ignorant of reality to say that death penalty convicts actually get a fair trial. Of course Republicans have an amazing ability to ignore reality.
6 Likes
Just think of where America would be today if this guy, his buddy Thomas and their planted POTUS Bush were never in the picture.
2 Likes
Don’t need a Con Law expert to predict he won’t recuse himself if such a case ever arises during his tenure. Conflict of Interest? Pshaw!!
1 Like
I have to hand it to Justice Scalia; his predictions of what is likely to happen in the future tend to be much more accurate than those of Dick Cheney.
His fail is in his inability to see that these are all good things.
2 Likes
What trips up his stance is the “fair trial” part. The court system is littered with flawed capital murder trials (made up evidence, witness tampering, lying counsel, etc etc), so what constitutes a “fair trial” anymore?
3 Likes