6-2 vote spare Troy Davis' life for now

[ZeGermans]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/....troy.davis/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has granted a condemned Georgia inmate's request that his execution be delayed as he attempts to prove his innocence. Troy Davis has always maintained his innocence in the 1989 killing of Officer Mark MacPhail. The inmate, Troy Davis, has gained international support for his long-standing claim that he did not murder a Savannah police officer nearly two decades ago. Justice John Paul Stevens on Monday ordered a federal judge to "receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could not have been obtained at trial clearly establishes petitioner's innocence." Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer supported the decision. Sonia Sotomayor, who was sworn in August 8 as the newest member of the high court, did not take part in the petition. Davis' case has had a dramatic series of ups and downs in the past year. He was granted a stay of execution by the Supreme Court two hours before he was to be put to death last fall.

Well at least this guy has a shot after the hilariously idiotic decision banning prisoners from being able to challenge convictions based on DNA evidence.

Questionable racist connotation removed from thread title and all post referencing it were move to the recycle bin

Anandtech Senior Moderator
Red Dawn

 

[Specop 007]

Hmm, even if a retrial finds him innocent of murder would he be found as an accessory and still be given life? The Law tends to frown, heavily, on the killing of one of its own.

Also interesting is the fact 7 of the 9 witnesses decided to sing a different tune.

This whole affair seems to have "Screwed up" written all over it.

 

[ZeGermans]

See its his last name!

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Shit, I guess not. Enlighten me cause somewhere this thread took a left turn and I kept on headin straight it seems!

Read the rest of the thread. You not understanding a simple pun is not my problem.

 

[ZeGermans]

I'm going with C: making sweeping rulings without even paying attention to the court proceedings that have far reaching negative effects on your entire race.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
I'm going with C: making sweeping rulings without even paying attention to the court proceedings that have far reaching negative effects on your entire race.

Hey smart guy, you arent supposed to rule on what benefits "your race." You are supposed to uphold the constitution.


I know you said your family is Austrian, and you guys dont have a great track record on racism, but you have to get into the 21st century now.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
I'm going with C: making sweeping rulings without even paying attention to the court proceedings that have far reaching negative effects on your entire race.

Hey smart guy, you arent supposed to rule on what benefits "your race." You are supposed to uphold the constitution.


I know you said your family is Austrian, and you guys dont have a great track record on racism, but you have to get into the 21st century now.

This is turning out to be a particularly lively evening on P&N.

 

[Lemon law]

Let us not confine our derision to only Clarance Thomas, when his partner in poor logic is a skallywag named Scalia.

Its does not matter if the crime victim was a cop or a criminal. murder is murder, but we should demand a high degree of proof, and DNA evidence meets that criteria, that we have the right vs. wrong perp convicted.

So far our track record is not very good in that area, there are no do overs after the death penalty is carried out.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Let us not confine our derision to only Clarance Thomas, when his partner in poor logic is a skallywag named Scalia.

Its does not matter if the crime victim was a cop or a criminal. murder is murder, but we should demand a high degree of proof, and DNA evidence meets that criteria, that we have the right vs. wrong perp convicted.

So far our track record is not very good in that area, there are no do overs after the death penalty is carried out.

Did you even read the article? This isn't a rape, it was a shooting - what DNA evidence are you going to have? Is there a question of the paternity of the bullet? AFAIK, only evidence presented was the testimony of the other witnesses to the scene.

The case (as outlined in the article) goes like this: Troy Davis and friends were harrassing a homeless person in a Burger King parking lot, cop comes to the assistance of the homeless guy, Troy Davis shoots policeman.

 

[ZeGermans]

Originally posted by: glenn1
The case (as outlined in the article) goes like this: Troy Davis and friends were harrassing a homeless person in a Burger King parking lot, cop comes to the assistance of the homeless guy, a black person shoots policeman.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Let us not confine our derision to only Clarance Thomas, when his partner in poor logic is a skallywag named Scalia.

Its does not matter if the crime victim was a cop or a criminal. murder is murder, but we should demand a high degree of proof, and DNA evidence meets that criteria, that we have the right vs. wrong perp convicted.

So far our track record is not very good in that area, there are no do overs after the death penalty is carried out.

Did you even read the article? This isn't a rape, it was a shooting - what DNA evidence are you going to have? Is there a question of the paternity of the bullet? AFAIK, only evidence presented was the testimony of the other witnesses to the scene.

The case (as outlined in the article) goes like this: Troy Davis and friends were harrassing a homeless person in a Burger King parking lot, cop comes to the assistance of the homeless guy, Troy Davis shoots policeman.

People watch CSI and think that is how the real world works.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
Originally posted by: glenn1
The case (as outlined in the article) goes like this: Troy Davis and friends were harrassing a homeless person in a Burger King parking lot, cop comes to the assistance of the homeless guy, a black person shoots policeman.

Fine, we'll stipulate a "black person" rather than Troy Davis, even though he was found guilty of the crime by a jury of his peers. That being said, where exactly do you believe the DNA evidence would be obtained in this case? Did the perpetrator rub the bullet in his blood before shooting the police officer? And even if you found some DNA evidence, how would this prove the innocence of Troy Davis?

 

[newnameman]

Can the OP please show where he got the idea that this was a 6-2 decision? It says that nowhere in the article.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Let us not confine our derision to only Clarance Thomas, when his partner in poor logic is a skallywag named Scalia.

Scalia was equally included.

The thing is, there's a difference between the two, even though they're both guilty of following the evil and radical 'Federalist Society' agenda.

Scalia is considered to be legally skilled - but just applying that skill on the side of evil.
No one says Scalia was appointed for being of Italian descent.

Thomas, on the other hand, was largely about his race, widely views as someone lacking the qualifications and legal stature for the Supreme Court, receiving one of the lowest ABA ratings in history for a Supreme Court Justice - indeed, a rating that simply rated qualified to be a lawyer, well below the ratings normal for a Supreme Court nominee.

Because he was replacing the historic first black (and liberal) jurist Thurgood Marshall, it's widely believed that the Bush administration played politics by playing this game:

- Black
- Radical right-winger
- Qualified
Pick two.

With African Americans having a 90% rate of supporting Democrats, and there being real pressure for blacks to get rewarded by supporting an agenda of the powerful people who run the country so that they can have figurehead blacks give the *appearance* of not having racist policies, to appease the many whites who are against racism, there is a real issue with the temptation for some blacks to compromise what's 'right' in exchange for the rewards - and the term 'Uncle Tom' exists for a reason.

Some people view Clarence Thomas as one who has made that compromise, choosing the rewards, such as a seat on the Supreme Court, in exchange for adopting positions that side with those who have the power to give those rewards. It can be debated how much he admits doing this - he may well rationalize it, he may even simply hold the positions in good faith - but the charge of him adopting positions harmful to blacks and being rewarded for doing to is certainly at least debatable, not 'racist'.

There's no cute nickname for 'evil radical Federalist Scalia' the way there for 'Uncle Thomas'. Scalia wasn't being left out as equally guilty for the ruling.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: newnameman
Can the OP please show where he got the idea that this was a 6-2 decision? It says that nowhere in the article.

Justice John Paul Stevens on Monday ordered a federal judge to "receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could not have been obtained at trial clearly establishes petitioner's innocence."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer supported the decision. Sonia Sotomayor, who was sworn in August 8 as the newest member of the high court, did not take part in the petition...

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas objected to the court's decision Monday, calling it a "fool's errand."

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Let us not confine our derision to only Clarance Thomas, when his partner in poor logic is a skallywag named Scalia.

With African Americans having a 90% rate of supporting Democrats, and there being real pressure for blacks to get rewarded by supporting an agenda of the powerful people who run the country so that they can have figurehead blacks give the *appearance* of not having racist policies, to appease the many whites who are against racism, there is a real issue with the temptation for some blacks to compromise what's 'right' in exchange for the rewards - and the term 'Uncle Tom' exists for a reason.

And despite their 90% support, Democrats have nominated exactly as many blacks to the Supreme Court as Republicans - one.

 

[newnameman]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: newnameman
Can the OP please show where he got the idea that this was a 6-2 decision? It says that nowhere in the article.

Justice John Paul Stevens on Monday ordered a federal judge to "receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could not have been obtained at trial clearly establishes petitioner's innocence."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer supported the decision. Sonia Sotomayor, who was sworn in August 8 as the newest member of the high court, did not take part in the petition...

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas objected to the court's decision Monday, calling it a "fool's errand."

Stevens + Ginsburg + Breyer = 3
3 does not equal 6.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: newnameman

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: newnameman
Can the OP please show where he got the idea that this was a 6-2 decision? It says that nowhere in the article.

Justice John Paul Stevens on Monday ordered a federal judge to "receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could not have been obtained at trial clearly establishes petitioner's innocence."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer supported the decision. Sonia Sotomayor, who was sworn in August 8 as the newest member of the high court, did not take part in the petition...

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas objected to the court's decision Monday, calling it a "fool's errand."

Stevens + Ginsburg + Breyer = 3
3 does not equal 6.

To clarify - you are right to ask, I was answering your question why the OP seemed to say what he did, that the article lists only two dissenters.

As to the question how the others voted, here's what scotusblog.com had ot say, about how not all the votes were announced:

The Court did not disclose how each of the Justices had voted, other than the dissents of Justices Scalia and Thomas. Presumably, however, an order of this kind would have required the approval of at least five votes. Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens presumably voted for the order; their opinion said the case was the type was was exceptional enough to qualify for the action. It is unclear how Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., or Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito, Jr., voted, if they did, but it appears that at least two of them would have had to agree to the step taken.

So it appears there were zero or one more dissenters than those two - but the same article begins with the comment there were 'two dissenters', for unclear reasons.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

This whole affair seems to have "Screwed up" written all over it.

Our justice system is screwed up. The more publicity a case has, the more police are pressured to put anyone behind bars. In Chicago, one of our ex-police commissioners I believe is heading to trial on allegations of torture to coerce confessions. The worst part is that those cases that have coerced confessions as a lynch pin of the conviction are not going to be reviewed because it would cost too much time and money.

Moreover, police are pressured to obtain confessions to crime and don't follow a cardinal rule, in that a confession has to reveal details of the crime that only the perp would know. A lot of times, police will simply produce a confession and pressure the suspect into signing the confession. A lot of people are in jail, not because they committed a crime, but because they admitted to committing a crime that they probably did not commit. I know, it sounds ridiculous that someone would sign a piece of paper saying they committed a crime when they didn't, but it happens, and it happens a lot.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Let us not confine our derision to only Clarance Thomas, when his partner in poor logic is a skallywag named Scalia.

Scalia was equally included.

The thing is, there's a difference between the two, even though they're both guilty of following the evil and radical 'Federalist Society' agenda.

Scalia is considered to be legally skilled - but just applying that skill on the side of evil.
No one says Scalia was appointed for being of Italian descent.

Thomas, on the other hand, was largely about his race, widely views as someone lacking the qualifications and legal stature for the Supreme Court, receiving one of the lowest ABA ratings in history for a Supreme Court Justice - indeed, a rating that simply rated qualified to be a lawyer, well below the ratings normal for a Supreme Court nominee.

Because he was replacing the historic first black (and liberal) jurist Thurgood Marshall, it's widely believed that the Bush administration played politics by playing this game:

- Black
- Radical right-winger
- Qualified
Pick two.

With African Americans having a 90% rate of supporting Democrats, and there being real pressure for blacks to get rewarded by supporting an agenda of the powerful people who run the country so that they can have figurehead blacks give the *appearance* of not having racist policies, to appease the many whites who are against racism, there is a real issue with the temptation for some blacks to compromise what's 'right' in exchange for the rewards - and the term 'Uncle Tom' exists for a reason.

Some people view Clarence Thomas as one who has made that compromise, choosing the rewards, such as a seat on the Supreme Court, in exchange for adopting positions that side with those who have the power to give those rewards. It can be debated how much he admits doing this - he may well rationalize it, he may even simply hold the positions in good faith - but the charge of him adopting positions harmful to blacks and being rewarded for doing to is certainly at least debatable, not 'racist'.

There's no cute nickname for 'evil radical Federalist Scalia' the way there for 'Uncle Thomas'. Scalia wasn't being left out as equally guilty for the ruling.

hahahahah Congrats Craig, you've achieved a new level of fail. Your posts are funny in the same way as those action movies that are intended to be serious but are soooo bad that they actually become very funny.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Let us not confine our derision to only Clarance Thomas, when his partner in poor logic is a skallywag named Scalia.

Scalia was equally included.

The thing is, there's a difference between the two, even though they're both guilty of following the evil and radical 'Federalist Society' agenda.

Scalia is considered to be legally skilled - but just applying that skill on the side of evil.
No one says Scalia was appointed for being of Italian descent.

Thomas, on the other hand, was largely about his race, widely views as someone lacking the qualifications and legal stature for the Supreme Court, receiving one of the lowest ABA ratings in history for a Supreme Court Justice - indeed, a rating that simply rated qualified to be a lawyer, well below the ratings normal for a Supreme Court nominee.

Because he was replacing the historic first black (and liberal) jurist Thurgood Marshall, it's widely believed that the Bush administration played politics by playing this game:

- Black
- Radical right-winger
- Qualified
Pick two.

With African Americans having a 90% rate of supporting Democrats, and there being real pressure for blacks to get rewarded by supporting an agenda of the powerful people who run the country so that they can have figurehead blacks give the *appearance* of not having racist policies, to appease the many whites who are against racism, there is a real issue with the temptation for some blacks to compromise what's 'right' in exchange for the rewards - and the term 'Uncle Tom' exists for a reason.

Some people view Clarence Thomas as one who has made that compromise, choosing the rewards, such as a seat on the Supreme Court, in exchange for adopting positions that side with those who have the power to give those rewards. It can be debated how much he admits doing this - he may well rationalize it, he may even simply hold the positions in good faith - but the charge of him adopting positions harmful to blacks and being rewarded for doing to is certainly at least debatable, not 'racist'.

There's no cute nickname for 'evil radical Federalist Scalia' the way there for 'Uncle Thomas'. Scalia wasn't being left out as equally guilty for the ruling.

Do you have the same diatribe for the most current appointee to the Supreme Court?

Oh, wait - the Democrats *surely* weren't playing politics. I'm afraid your blinders must've meshed into the side of your head by now.

Anybody who uses the term "Uncle Tom" helps to keep in place the bigoted nature in this country that they typically rail against. Congrats on being part of the machine!

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/....troy.davis/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has granted a condemned Georgia inmate's request that his execution be delayed as he attempts to prove his innocence. Troy Davis has always maintained his innocence in the 1989 killing of Officer Mark MacPhail. The inmate, Troy Davis, has gained international support for his long-standing claim that he did not murder a Savannah police officer nearly two decades ago. Justice John Paul Stevens on Monday ordered a federal judge to "receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could not have been obtained at trial clearly establishes petitioner's innocence." Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer supported the decision. Sonia Sotomayor, who was sworn in August 8 as the newest member of the high court, did not take part in the petition. Davis' case has had a dramatic series of ups and downs in the past year. He was granted a stay of execution by the Supreme Court two hours before he was to be put to death last fall.

Well at least this guy has a shot after the hilariously idiotic decision banning prisoners from being able to challenge convictions based on DNA evidence.

What's the DNA evidence here?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Do you have the same diatribe for the most current appointee to the Supreme Court?

Oh, wait - the Democrats *surely* weren't playing politics. I'm afraid your blinders must've meshed into the side of your head by now.

Anybody who uses the term "Uncle Tom" helps to keep in place the bigoted nature in this country that they typically rail against. Congrats on being part of the machine!

There is such a thing as racism against blacks. There is such a thing as racists who want to get some blacks to support that racism instead of oppose it. Some blacks do so.

There is a reason the term Uncle Tom exists, to describe something real, and whether or not the term fits Thomas, you are wrong to claim the term is simply a racist term itself.

You lack understanding but try to compensate with obnoxiousness. It doesn't work.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

You're an idiot, and I'd worry if you did not disagree with my posts, the more the better.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
...
This whole affair seems to have "Screwed up" written all over it.

It's georgia, man - questionable whenever race is involved. It might be lessening somewhat but it's still thoroughly ingrained in the consciousness here. The georgia supreme court denied this guy without a blink. Believe it or not, witnesses can be intimidated here.