How I would have written Scalia’s dissent

Avatar

Will

Will writes from Washington, D.C. (well, Arlington, Virginia). You can reach him at willblogcorrespondence at gmail dot com.

Related Post Roulette

11 Responses

  1. Avatar Travis
    Ignored
    says:

    Why not take that opportunity? Simple: Because Justice Scalia is a right-wing ideologue who’s never met a convict he thought was innocent. To do what you ask, he’d have to admit that the justice system in this country is often fundamentally unjust.

    Scalia doesn’t trust the government to do anything, except kill people and arrest gays.Report

  2. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    even if new evidence comes to light that convinces the court to a moral certainty that the defendant is innocent.

    How is this *NOT* a game-changer? The Bill of Rights was created to protect folks from stuff like “federal courts saying ‘T.S.’ in response to new evidence exonorating defendants.”

    Especially an *ORIGINALIST* ought to understand that… that’s the crap we accused the British of doing and one of the reasons we had a revolution in the first place.Report

  3. Avatar greginak
    Ignored
    says:

    Obsidian Wings has had a couple of great long posts explaining the legal theory stuff behind this. None of is particularly kind to Scalia, but it gives a good background on the issues. That said, scalia is an ideologue , who is an originalist when it suits him. He said what he said to make a point. He values procedure more then justice or life and he doesn’t care of poor people are killed by the system. I’m sure he absolutely loathes the Innocence Project.Report

  4. Avatar Mark Thompson
    Ignored
    says:

    Will, great point, particularly in light of the fact that Scalia is not exactly a stranger to infusing his decisions, particularly his dissents, with emotion and personal opinions.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Mark Thompson
      Ignored
      says:

      If you’d like to get really confused, read his opinion on Gonzalez v. Raich.

      Dude *FINALLY* gets a chance to spit in the face of Wickard v. Filburn once and for all. He wouldn’t even have changed anything. It would have turned a 6-3 ruling into a 5-4 ruling.

      When given the chance between putting his thumb in the eye of Wickard and putting it in the eye of hippies, he picked the hippies.Report

      • Avatar Bob in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Obama AG, Eric Holder, stickups for the hippies, kinda-sorta.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/us/19holder.html?_r=1Report

        • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Bob
          Ignored
          says:

          Eh. I’d be more impressed if they weren’t still busting dispensaries.Report

          • Avatar North in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            Come now Jay. You’ve seen how they move on things they actually claim to care about. You can’t be expecting much on the pot front. Join me in jaded exasperation! We’ll make a shirt with a logo or something.Report

            • Avatar Jaybird in reply to North
              Ignored
              says:

              I’m somewhat irritated because I’ve thought that there were things that the Republicans and Democrats were supposed to be good at. It’s no surprise if the Republicans are bad when it comes to welfare or the Democrats are bad when it comes to cutting budgets. They’re supposed to be! That’s the downside of their supposed upsides.

              But when they’re bad at stuff that they’re supposed to be good at, it really, really sucks.

              Bush provides a great example. Obama, so far, has not demonstrated a huge difference between himself and Bush on this particular front. I don’t care whether he’s bad at the stuff democrats are supposed to be bad at. That’s already baked into the cake.

              He’s bad at stuff that Democrats are supposed to be good at.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *