Heartland

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: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.

Finest legal mind of his generation

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.

sultan2075 wrote: Why is an Englishman such as yourself so interested in American jurisprudence?

Because he CAN be.

emilystrange wrote:

sultan2075 wrote: Why is an Englishman such as yourself so interested in American jurisprudence?

Because he CAN be.

Didn't say couldn't be. Just wanted to know why he is.

sultan2075 wrote: 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.

Even that I tag myself as liberal (in more classical meanging), I have to agree, I saw that few people were quite opposite to not happy about his death, like he was Saddam Hussey, Pol Pot or Pinochet. And that's where some showed their hopocrisy.

And yes, read full statment, don't act like most of journalists.

Anyhow, it's true that his sudden, unexpected (?) death will change election, well at leat for some, because Donald Tramp, still, will be using his head to eat.

Bartek wrote:Saddam Hussey

That infamous foreign dictator and 12-string guitar enthusiast.

(Sorry, I don't mean to derail your discussion, but I couldn't let that typo pass without an aside)

That isn't/wasn't a typo. It was meant to add some humour to that thread.

Same as "Tramp".

Bartek wrote:That isn't/wasn't a typo. It was meant to add some humour to that thread.

Same as "Tramp".

Ah, my apologies - in that case

sultan2075 wrote: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.

I agree that putting the quote in its full context doesn't paint Scalia in quite the same light. I should have investigated for myself rather than mindlessly parroting it. Mea culpa.

As to why I'm interested, well it's going to mean "interesting times" ahead for President Obama. Already the right-wing noise-machine are claiming that he should hold off on nominating a successor despite it being some 300 days before the end of his term. (Bear in mind that Reagan nominated Kennedy to the court with about 6 months left.)

Also, the court is now deadlocked at 4 liberal justices and 4 conservatives with a number of controversial rulings imminent. (Clicky)

It's interesting from my, Polish, point of view, where 6 months before parliment election, rulling party/goverment changed Act of Constitutional Tribunal (kinda, yet-not-the-same-as, SCOTUS), added 2 judges, and upvoted 3 judges in replace those whos tenures were about to end next day before election (it was already knew, as election day was setteled before that).

Anyhow, to me American judges for SCOTUS may be interesting if i knew lot more than i know (and i know a little) about US of A law system. I'm more concerned about that Presidential election.

Some will find this interesting: http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/cen ... Scalia.pdf

sultan2075 wrote:Some will find this interesting: http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/cen ... Scalia.pdf

Interesting indeed. In the light of that speech, I'm not sure where Scalia found corporate personhood in the Constitution for the Citizens United decision.

markfiend wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:Some will find this interesting: http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/cen ... Scalia.pdf

Interesting indeed. In the light of that speech, I'm not sure where Scalia found corporate personhood in the Constitution for the Citizens United decision.

I've not read the Citizens United decision closely (perhaps I should start assigning it in class), but the idea of corporate personhood is really rooted in Hobbes's discussion of "personation" in the Leviathan. Kennedy, I think, essentially said that associations of citizens collectively have First Amendment rights as well; Scalia's concurrence focused on the text of the First Amendment, noting that it concerns speech rather than speakers.

OK but the point I'm trying to make is that Scalia's "strict constructionism" varied wildly in its strictness depending on the outcome that he wanted.

He's not a strict constructionist, and says so explicitly in the speech I linked earlier.

I meant to say "originalism".

All that aside, it leaves matters in a delicately balanced state. this is an interesting analysis.