markfiend wrote:I'm wondering what's going to happen with the US Supreme Court now that
Scalia has died.
Even if the Republicans manage to filibuster an Obama-nominated replacement the right-wing no longer has a majority of the justices, which potentially makes for some interesting decisions being made in the near future.
And a quick FYI: Scalia was the man who wrote this opinion:
Antonin Scalia wrote:The Georgia Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s “actual-innocence� claim on the merits, denying his extraordinary motion for a new trial. Davis can obtain relief only if that determination was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.� It most assuredly was not. 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. See Herrera v. Collins, 506 U. S. 390, 400–401, 416–417 (1993); see also House v. Bell, 547 U. S. 518, 555 (2006); District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, ante, at 18. A state court cannot possibly have contravened, or even unreasonably applied, “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,� by rejecting a type of claim that the Supreme Court has not once accepted as valid.
Finest legal mind of his generation
Why is an Englishman such as yourself so interested in American jurisprudence?
The opinion you are citing is considerably more complex than the single out-of-context statement you are quoting. It concerns questions of jurisdictions, of the relations between federal and state court systems, repeated investigations of evidence by the state court, etc. If you want to read the actual opinion, it is here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08 ... scalia.pdf
The more relevant quote, however, would be this:
Antonin Scalia wrote:
Today, without explanation and without any meaningful guidance, this Court sends the District Court for the Southern District of Georgia on a fool’s errand. That court is directed to consider evidence of actual innocence which has been reviewed and rejected at least three times, and which, even if adequate to persuade the District Court, cannot (as far as anyone knows) form the basis for any relief. I truly do not see how the District Court can discern what is expected of it. If this Court thinks it possible that capital convictions obtained in full compliance with law can never be final, but are always subject to being set aside by federal courts for the reason of “actual innocence,� it should set this case on our own docket so that we can (if necessary) resolve that question. Sending it to a district court that “might� be authorized to provide relief, but then again “might� be reversed if it did so, is not a sensible way to proceed.
Also note that in this context "actual innocence" is a technical legal term. The man was executed precisely because the State of Georgia did not think that the "new" evidence supported a claim of "actual innocence" and therefore an overturning of the conviction. Scalia's dissent says that what the Supreme Court did was a half-measure: they should have either set the case on their own docket (i.e., made it a Supreme Court case) or they should have not interfered with the lower courts in Georgia.
I know the liberal hive-mind is supposed to be overjoyed by the man's death, because disagreement is evil, but really: context matters - that is also why I've replaced your out-of-context quote with the actual paragraph in which the sentence by which you are so bothered appears.
