In the four days since the U.S. Supreme Court granted condemned Georgia inmate Troy Davis an extra day in court, the legal community has been buzzing over this dissenting line written by Justice Antonin Scalia and endorsed by colleague Clarence Thomas:
“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. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged ‘actual innocence’ is constitutionally cognizable.”
Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, a civil liberties lawyer, offers this hypothetical in the Daily Beast:
Let us be clear precisely what this means.
If a defendant were convicted, after a constitutionally unflawed trial, of murdering his wife, and then came to the Supreme Court with his very much alive wife at his side, and sought a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (namely that his wife was alive), these two justices would tell him, in effect: “Look, your wife may be alive as a matter of fact, but as a matter of constitutional law, she’s dead, and as for you, Mr. Innocent Defendant, you’re dead, too, since there is no constitutional right not to be executed merely because you’re innocent.”
— This morning, state Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond announced that the state unemployment rate had inched up a few percentage points to 10.3 percent.
Said Thurmond:
“Although layoffs are moderating, nearly a half-million Georgians are officially unemployed,” said State Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond. “These jobless workers could comprise a mythical unemployment line that stretches from Dalton to Atlanta, through Macon and down to Valdosta.”
No, it wouldn’t, actually. As we’ve discussed in this space before, human beings, on average, take up two square feet of space. So a line of 500,000 people — with no break — would stretch 1 million feet. Or roughly 190 miles.
In other words, from Dalton to Perry. That’s 120 miles or so short of Valdosta. Still a long line, but facts is facts.
— According to The Hill newspaper, this movement includes U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss:
Several Republican senators are urging Attorney General Eric Holder to scrap plans to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate CIA officials who interrogated suspected terrorists.
In a letter to Holder sent Wednesday, nine GOP Senators including Sen. Kit Bond (Mo.), the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, said that the appointment of a special prosecutor could “have serious consequences, not just for the honorable members of the intelligence community, but also for the security of all Americans.”
— Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz, who gave one of the most accurate predictions of Barack Obama’s victory last year, has a piece this morning at Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball.
The topic is the myth of the independent voter:
The large majority of independent identifiers lean toward one of the two major parties and these independent partisans are virtually indistinguishable from regular partisans in political outlook or behavior. It therefore makes no sense to view independents as a homogenous bloc of floating voters. Independents are sharply divided along party lines just like the rest of the American electorate.
While you ponder the above, consider these items found while perusing this morning’s ajc.com:
Georgia DOT may have balanced its budget. Engineer confirmed for new DOT post. Synovus unloading repo homes to clear bad loans. Creative Loafing, newspaper siblings up for auction. Georgia colleges hold the course on U.S. News rankings. Gwinnett County begins immigration checks on businesses. Fulton County sets 2009 tax rate. Atlanta man dumped three tons of human limbs, medical waste.
Some opinion:
Your Luckovich fix. Kyle Wingfield on Jesse Spikes’ effort to tap into voter angst. President Obama: We must loosen health insurance industry’s grip. Newt Gingrich: Competition, not rationing, is the cure for health care reform.
And from elsewhere:
NYT: CIA sought Blackwater’s help in plan to kill jihadists. WP: Public opinion in U.S. turns against the war in Afghanistan. WSJ: Federal deficit projection trimmed for 2009.
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter.
12 comments Add your comment
Donald Bernk
August 20th, 2009
9:36 am
As usual, Dershowitz provides an interesting and compelling argument. But I imagine Justice Scalia would respond that while it’s true that the Supreme Court should not deal with that issue and therefore would seem to be permitting an innocent man to be executed, in fact, presented with such a set of facts, the lower courts would quickly, clearly and understandably vacate the death sentence. If not the lower court, then certainly the governor would. Scalia’s argument is that supreme court doesn’t have that job.
pd
August 20th, 2009
9:37 am
I suppose that Scalia and Thomas view innocence the same as guilt. Meaning, that if a person is found innocent of a crime, we cannot keep prosecuting him, just because he is “actually” guilty.
I actually can understand their logic, however, misguided and immoral it may be.
Thankfully, the rest of the Court is able to think in larger terms than these two.
I wonder if Anita Hill would say that Clarence Thomas is free to say, “There is a pubic hair on your coke”, if there was an “actual” pubic hair on her coke….
jconservative
August 20th, 2009
9:49 am
While I am not a big Scalia fan (he legislates from the bench far to much for me) I agree with him on this one. The scenario Alan Dershowitz
pictures cries out for the statement that it is a “State matter to be handled by the State courts”. This is not a Supreme Court of the United States matter.
pd
August 20th, 2009
10:06 am
In this particular case, the state has already made its final decisions. Thankfully for Troy Davis, the other 7 did not agree that this should just be for the states to decide.
Donald Bernk
August 20th, 2009
10:14 am
Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t agree with Scalia. But the argument is that there are plenty of appropriate places other than the Supreme Court for the issue.(the pardons and parole board or Governor could always take up the Troy Davis case again if the murdered person somehow showed up alive- to continue the Dershowitz analogy)
pd
August 20th, 2009
10:32 am
If I was the Governor, based on what has been presented, I would have no choice but to try and get Troy Davis a new trial and would grant a stay of execution until he did.
Chris Broe
August 20th, 2009
11:24 am
This constitutional blindness is the point that the new supreme court justice was trying to make when she testified about making decisions based on criteria different from precedence or law. Score Soto!
clyde
August 20th, 2009
11:31 am
As an independent voter I vote for whichever party’s candidate I think will do the least damage to the country.I don’t vote for the fringe parties because I feel they have little place in American politics at the present time.I once voted for an independent for Governor of a state and he won.In my case the independent voter is hardly a myth.
Chris Broe
August 20th, 2009
11:35 am
I wonder what Judge Roy Bean woulda done with this wife-killin’ and convicted-murderin’ piece of confederate trash?
Chris Broe
August 20th, 2009
11:53 am
you’re not independent in the sense that all your thoughts have been forged by television, where every issue is framed in only two ways: right vs left.
Even if you’ve overcome that handicap, you still are a product of the brain washing and can only rebel against what you’ve been exposed to.
Our electoral process is very similar to the first few campaigns we endured in the early 1800’s. (With the voters no more independent than we are now)
It’s all about visceral appeal. Emotional thuggery. Who can best drain the humanity out of an issue? Who can best characterize candidates as monsters? The right, that’s who.
David S
August 20th, 2009
12:14 pm
If anyone doubted that our system of so-called justice is severly broken, this should clear it up. Let’s not forget of course that routine in normal “constitutional court” proceedings includes the blatant coverup of exculpatory evidence by the prosecution so as to achieve conviction and further their political careers.
No doubt the prosecution in this hypothetical case knew that the wife was alive, but hid the fact so that he/she could gain a conviction. What then justices??
There was a time when the goal of courts was justice and to find the truth. No longer. Now it is a contest to win at all costs. Judges, juries, prosecutors, and public defenders are all employed by the government – the same folks that pander to their uneducated, ignorant constituents by passing thousands of pointless laws that serve nobody but themselves.
Private alternatives have been written about by hundreds of wonderful scholars. They begin with private dispute resolution, private security, and competing adjucation mechanisms. They replace the self-serving system we currently have with one that serves the victim and the perpetrator both, while leaving the fabric of society richer. The focus is inherently on restitution, rather than retribution.
With government systems failing all around us, isn’t it high to to soundly consider why we allow the government to assume the role of high inquisitor, taking away our freedoms and our liberties while providing a system of injustice that robs all of us of our humanity and money.
Don
August 20th, 2009
6:55 pm
If they do have a new trial and the 7 witnesses change their testimony I think they need to be prosecuted for perjury and punished accordingly, this issue has spent too much time in our court system, and it smells of payoff of witnesses.