SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (118740)8/18/2009 9:03:06 PM
From: Dale Baker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 541877
 
Sounds like jurisdiction and due process; if an ultimately faulty process appears to have been conducted properly, the court has not chosen before to intervene to correct a subsequently discovered fault.

Scalia and Thomas would rather let a possibly innocent man die than step in and set a precedent to do the right thing.

Talk about unaccountable government appointees choosing who is going to live or die based on their own weird criteria....



To: JohnM who wrote (118740)8/19/2009 6:51:13 AM
From: Travis_Bickle  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 541877
 
It's impossible to say without reading the actual court opinion. There's a federal statute involved and I guess the majority feels it goes too far, while the minority feels it doesn't. I read the facts of the case quite a while ago, I wouldn't go so far as to say the convicted person is innocent, I think he will still fry or be injected.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News