• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Justice Sotomayor’s first vote on the Supreme Court yesterda

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Sotomayor on the Job [Wendy Long]

Justice Sotomayor’s first vote on the Supreme Court yesterday was to stay the execution of an unquestionably guilty hitman that even Ohio’s Democratic governor wanted to go forward. (It did; she and the liberal activist bloc lost the vote.)



Who's surprised?



Sotomayor boosters tried to paint her as a tough-on-crime former prosecutor to counteract her radical-left, anti-death-penalty activism during her days with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.



Remember Joe Biden assuring law enforcement she "has your back"?



Remember the White House continually highlighting her work for New York City DA Robert Morgenthau?



Remember her supporters touting that she had allowed "the first prosecution in the Southern District of New York of a death-penalty case in over 40 years"?



Ever catch the Alliance for Justice's report, which said:

Exhibiting a modest and restrained approach to trial process, she frequently concludes that procedural defects resulted in harmless rather than structural error. Her cautious style reveals the temperament of a former prosecutor who understands the real-world demands of prosecuting crime and fundamentally respects the rule of law, while remaining alert to the rights of criminal defendants.

All these little attempts to mislead and distract were transparently absurd, but it's worth noting, just for the record.

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWNjNGZjMzZkYzg1OGRkNmRjNzhmNjhmNjZiMDUwZjU=
 

Mike

Well-known member
Not surprising at all. We knew what she would be like and how she would vote. :roll:

Poor liberals have nothing here to argue either. :lol:
 

alice

Well-known member
Wish she'd been on the court when GW was governor of TX. :shock: :shock:

The only one he stayed the execution of was Henry Lee Lucas! There were others...oh there were others...that he, in all of his wisdom and lack of education...refused to sign off on.

I'm not anti death penalty...far from it. But, I'm just sayin'...

Alice
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
alice said:
Wish she'd been on the court when GW was governor of TX. :shock: :shock:

The only one he stayed the execution of was Henry Lee Lucas! There were others...oh there were others...that he, in all of his wisdom and lack of education...refused to sign off on.

I'm not anti death penalty...far from it. But, I'm just sayin'...

Alice

Didn't old Henry Lee con them into believing that if they left him alive longer he'd take them to more bodies they could then identify...

We even had Detectives from up here talking with Henry Lee..
 

alice

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
alice said:
Wish she'd been on the court when GW was governor of TX. :shock: :shock:

The only one he stayed the execution of was Henry Lee Lucas! There were others...oh there were others...that he, in all of his wisdom and lack of education...refused to sign off on.

I'm not anti death penalty...far from it. But, I'm just sayin'...

Alice

Didn't old Henry Lee con them into believing that if they left him alive longer he'd take them to more bodies they could then identify...

We even had Detectives from up here talking with Henry Lee..

Yeah, and believe it or not, it had to do with Henry Lee being "not quite right" in the head. Didn't matter about anyone else being "not quite right" in the head. But GW, or his handlers anyway, made it sound like Henry Lee could come up with more bodies. I don't think he ever did... :?

Alice
 

alice

Well-known member
Yikes, Hypocrite...hurry up...google all of your neocon websites to refute this....hurry, hurry, hurry...'cause I'm sleepy...and I'm going to bed now.

Alice
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Read through this and you will find that Justice Sotomoyer did not vote on this ruling by the court.


Troy Davis Ruling Raises Death-Penalty Questions
..By DAVID VON DREHLE David Von Drehle – Tue Aug 18, 11:15 am ET
Under normal circumstances, it takes a case of national importance to rile the Supreme Court during its summer recess. But in the words of an old axiom about capital punishment, "death is different." And so, on a sleepy mid-August Monday, Aug. 17, the court - over a strong dissent - dusted off an antique tool, unused for nearly half a century, to force a new hearing into the slow-rolling fate of a Georgia death-row prisoner named Troy Davis. In the process, the court has opened up new questions about the death penalty: most crucially, how far the courts must go to ensure that an innocent person - as a wide array of politicians, former prosecutors and judges contend Davis is - is not executed.


Like most death-penalty cases, this story is maddening and convoluted. Davis was convicted in 1991 of a tawdry and pathetic 1989 murder. On a hot Savannah night almost exactly 20 years ago, Davis and two acquaintances were hassling a homeless man at a Burger King parking lot next to the bus station. They wanted his beer, and one of the bullies - either Davis or a fellow known as Red Coles - clubbed the victim with a handgun. As it happened, an off-duty police officer, Mark MacPhail, was providing security at the restaurant. When he came running to the scene, the man with the gun shot the officer to death. (Read "Will Georgia Kill an Innocent Man?")


Anyone who has ever spent a few weeks on the police beat could guess what happened next. Coles blamed Davis. Davis fingered Coles. Investigators built a case from the available materials: ambiguous ballistics, jailhouse snitches, witnesses with grudges and the often unreliable observations of the sort of folks who need a burger at 1 a.m. The amalgam was enough to persuade 12 jurors that Davis was guilty, and because the dead man wore a badge, the sentence was death.


Five years later, Congress, exasperated by the seemingly endless nature of death-penalty appeals, passed a law intended to speed the death-row journeys of prisoners like Davis. Optimistically called the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), the new law attempted to limit death-row prisoners to one set of appeals in federal court. Despite the restriction, Davis raised a variety of constitutional issues in his trip through the federal courts. Along the way, his lawyers accumulated a stack of affidavits from the motley crew of witnesses and from snitches of their own recanting their trial testimony and, in some cases, pointing new fingers at Coles. The Davis case became a morass of contradictory statements from addled witnesses, many of whom were either lying then or are lying now - or maybe both. (See "Top 10 Unsolved Crimes.")


Still, a necessary fiction underpinning our justice system is the idea that juries get things right, and so over the years, the courts found no reason to overturn the verdict, in some instances rejecting Davis' appeals on purely procedural grounds. At one point, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles conducted a detailed examination of the new evidence, but when it decided that Davis did not deserve mercy, the prisoner was forced to ask a panel of judges from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for special permission under the AEDPA to file a second federal appeal - this one based on the simple claim that Davis is plainly innocent.


By a vote of 2 to 1, the panel ruled against Davis, and this is where the Supreme Court comes in. Numerous times since the 1996 law was passed, the high court has ruled that the limits imposed by the AEDPA are valid - when they restrict the lower courts. But the Justices held open their own prerogative to issue a writ of habeas corpus if so moved. In other words, the lower federal courts had no power to hear another word from Davis. But he could make his pitch directly to the Supreme Court. Prisoners have been trying for nearly 50 years without success to get the Justices to employ this "original jurisdiction." Davis succeeded. (Read "Stay of Execution for Georgia Man.")


"The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death clearly provides an adequate justification," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens, in an opinion joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. "Simply put, the case is sufficiently 'exceptional' to warrant utilization of this Court's" power to intervene from on high. The court ordered a federal district judge in Georgia to examine all the conflicting evidence in the case and determine whether Davis is, in fact, innocent.

But that in and of itself seems to violate the AEDPA, which specifically bars the district judges from having anything more to do with this case. This wrinkle sent Justice Antonin Scalia to his writing desk. In a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Scalia noted the odd fact that the Supreme Court was ordering the lower-court judge to hold a hearing that, according to Congress, the judge is not allowed to convene. "Without explanation and without any meaningful guidance," Scalia wrote, the court was sending the district judge "on a fool's errand." The evidence, he asserted, "has been reviewed and rejected at least three times," and even if the judge finds it compelling, where's the legal power for the judge to act? (See "Top 10 Crime Stories of 2008.")



For Douglas Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University, "the way the court 'decided' the Troy Davis case today raises a lot more questions than it answers. It also probably ensures still more litigation in the future."


Among the questions: Is the district judge advising the Supreme Court on how to handle the Davis case or is the matter now formally in the district court again? Do the three silent Justices, who signed neither opinion - Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito - have a shared view of this unusual action? (Newly sworn-in Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not participate in the case.) Is this step a prelude to an official determination that the Constitution forbids the execution of an innocent prisoner, a seemingly obvious assumption that has never been formally declared? If so, what new filters of trial procedure and judicial review will have to be installed to reach that level of certainty and perfection? In his dissent, Scalia wrote, "This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent."


The court's August eruption highlights once again the fundamental screwiness of America's death penalty. In the marble halls of our rational humanity, we demand absolute clarity and justice. As one of the many judges who has reviewed Davis' case puts it, "I do not believe that any member of a civilized society could disagree that executing an innocent person would be an atrocious violation of our Constitution and the principles upon which it is based."


But most murders don't happen in the precincts of the rational or the just. They happen on the late-night mean streets, where truth is often a figment, and memory is as slippery as the greasy pavement.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Hurley, how did the MSM get it wrong?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-us-sotomayor-death-appeal,0,3967152.story?obref=obnetwork

She voted along with the court's liberal bloc — Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — to stop the execution of Jason Getsy, whose execution is Tuesday.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Hurley, how did the MSM get it wrong?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-us-sotomayor-death-appeal,0,3967152.story?obref=obnetwork

She voted along with the court's liberal bloc — Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — to stop the execution of Jason Getsy, whose execution is Tuesday.

I do not know who got it wrong, but I thought Time was reliable is as you posted about President Obama and his luckly charms he carries and used Time as the Source. May be Time got it wrong and maybe MSM got it wrong. I would think that she has not had time to study the case and really get into it because of the short time on the court. Do you think the court decides something in a weeks time a days time or not. I will admit I do not know how the court works, But I only thought I would help you in exposing Hypocrites. Could be you do not need any help Sorry I imposed on you.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Hurley, how did the MSM get it wrong?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-us-sotomayor-death-appeal,0,3967152.story?obref=obnetwork

She voted along with the court's liberal bloc — Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — to stop the execution of Jason Getsy, whose execution is Tuesday.

I went back and tracked through the attached website you posted and there were two different cases. It was not real apparent where to go to on the first website and finally ended up in the Swamp site and it explained it for me. In the future all I try to look at the sites before posting something to make sure I am right.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Not a problem, just in case, same story from the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/us/19scotus.html?hp

I didn't think she had been confirmed long enough to vote either, but...
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
hurleyjd said:
hypocritexposer said:
Hurley, how did the MSM get it wrong?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-us-sotomayor-death-appeal,0,3967152.story?obref=obnetwork

She voted along with the court's liberal bloc — Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — to stop the execution of Jason Getsy, whose execution is Tuesday.

I went back and tracked through the attached website you posted and there were two different cases. It was not real apparent where to go to on the first website and finally ended up in the Swamp site and it explained it for me. In the future all I try to look at the sites before posting something to make sure I am right.

That was big of you!
 

alice

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
hurleyjd said:
hypocritexposer said:
Hurley, how did the MSM get it wrong?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-us-sotomayor-death-appeal,0,3967152.story?obref=obnetwork

I went back and tracked through the attached website you posted and there were two different cases. It was not real apparent where to go to on the first website and finally ended up in the Swamp site and it explained it for me. In the future all I try to look at the sites before posting something to make sure I am right.

That was big of you!

And that was small of you...

Alice
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
alice said:
aplusmnt said:
hurleyjd said:
I went back and tracked through the attached website you posted and there were two different cases. It was not real apparent where to go to on the first website and finally ended up in the Swamp site and it explained it for me. In the future all I try to look at the sites before posting something to make sure I am right.

That was big of you!

And that was small of you...

Alice

Are you retarded? I was complimenting him on admitting he made a mistake! aka "that was big of you"

Am I in Bizaro world or something? :roll:
 
Top