Scalia is a cock.
-
QUOTEThis 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.
Pesky "innocence" getting in the way of Scalia's Sacco and Vanzetti wet dreams!
Does anybody know why the supreme court might intentionally be leaving this issue "unresolved"? All I can think is that it's intention is to keep new evidence out of old cases, for the benefit of both the state and the defendant... but that's thin. "I'm already a convicted felon, sentenced to death! It's a shame they found that additional stockpile of guns on my second property! Now I'm super death sentenced!"
But I thought the point of the supreme court was precisely to "resolve" this exact kind of legal dilemma.
This discussion has been closed.
← All Discussions Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!