Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Justice Scalia once cited the case of death row inmate Henry Lee McCollum as a good example of why he supported the death penalty. Fark: McCollum was exonerated by DNA evidence today   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, Justice Antonin Scalia, Henry Lee McCollum, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Buddy McCollum, death penalty, Justice Harry A. Blackmun, DNA evidence, dissenting opinions  
•       •       •

10565 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Sep 2014 at 1:49 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



216 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-09-03 12:03:26 AM  
FTA: When the court declined to review an unrelated death row case out of Texas in 1994, Justice Harry A. Blackmun issued a dissenting opinion arguing that capital punishment is cruel and unusual, and therefore unconstitutional.

Scalia answered back with an opinion of his own: "For example, the case of an 11-year-old girl raped by four men and then killed by stuffing her panties down her throat," Scalia wrote in Callins v. Collins. "How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that!"

He was referring to Henry Lee McCollum, who at the time had already been on death row for 12 years. McCollum's conviction was overturned on Tuesday when DNA evidence implicated another man in the case.
 
2014-09-03 12:05:59 AM  
Adding more irony, Scalia later said about this decision: "It should be noted at the outset that the dissent does not discuss a single case -- not one -- in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent's name would be shouted from the rooftops by the abolition lobby."
 
2014-09-03 12:11:39 AM  
Scalia can't be bothered with evidence

/he just knows what he knows
 
2014-09-03 12:13:09 AM  
Wait...was it a black guy?
 
2014-09-03 12:13:45 AM  
Clicks on link...Funny...yeah it was.
 
2014-09-03 12:15:46 AM  
 
2014-09-03 12:19:17 AM  
Scalia is an idiot.

Film at Eleven.
 
2014-09-03 12:23:42 AM  
How do Supreme Court justices live so goddamned long? Seriously. Do they get special medical treatment that includes baby blood transfusions, or something? Scalia is going to be around at least another 40 years.

F*cker.
 
2014-09-03 12:33:21 AM  
As soon as I saw the story on the BBC site I knew they would be black and
click... yup, mentally disabled black teenagers.

Nice they're getting out of jail and all but there are no winners here.  Little girl still dead, two men robbed of their freedom and narrowly escaped with their lives.
 
2014-09-03 12:53:59 AM  
I'm at such a loss.  I keep trying to come up with something pithy and it's eluding me.

His argument for the death penalty is, essentially, "Some crimes are so heinous that SOMEBODY'S got to get it in the neck -- but don't worry, it's a nicer death than their victims get"?  There's something so contradictory there.

If the impulse is the blood-level-deep desire for revenge, then let's forego all niceties and just hack off heads.  Heck, who needs to bring it to a trial.  Everyone clearly knew those men were guilty, right?  The police who verbally battered them into confessing surely knew the men were guilty.  It was just a matter of pressuring them until they told 'the truth.'

But if the impulse is to keep things humane and civilized, and to keep punishment within its proper bounds, then how can your argument for the death penalty be "We never stooped to the level these murderers went to when we killed them, so it's okay"?
 
2014-09-03 01:27:12 AM  

SilentStrider: Scalia is an idiot.


He's not an idiot. He's wrong, which is worse. Perhaps the Pope can straighten him out on his pro-life reasoning.
 
2014-09-03 01:38:33 AM  

shower_in_my_socks: FTA: When the court declined to review an unrelated death row case out of Texas in 1994, Justice Harry A. Blackmun issued a dissenting opinion arguing that capital punishment is cruel and unusual, and therefore unconstitutional.

Scalia answered back with an opinion of his own: "For example, the case of an 11-year-old girl raped by four men and then killed by stuffing her panties down her throat," Scalia wrote in Callins v. Collins. "How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that!"

He was referring to Henry Lee McCollum, who at the time had already been on death row for 12 years. McCollum's conviction was overturned on Tuesday when DNA evidence implicated another man in the case.


Note that Scalia didn't name any names. Change the name and the sentiment remains. That McCollum was wrongfully convicted doesn't change the nature of the crime or the visceral reaction that people have to it, nor does it change the fact that the opinion was issued 20 years ago, ample time for people's opinions and ideas to evolve should they wish them to (as has happened to national sentiment with regard to the death penalty). I probably would have said the same thing 20 years ago. I would not say that now.
 
2014-09-03 01:41:25 AM  

Chariset: His argument for the death penalty is, essentially, "Some crimes are so heinous that SOMEBODY'S got to get it in the neck -- but don't worry, it's a nicer death than their victims get"? There's something so contradictory there.


No, his first argument is that the girl's death was more cruel than a needle in the arm, thus the death penalty isn't cruel and unusual punishment. Both of his arguments presuppose that the justice system is flawless.

//no, I don't believe this shiat, I just understand it. It's not about logic, it's about ideology. It doesn't need to be consistent.
 
2014-09-03 01:55:15 AM  
30 years.
 
2014-09-03 01:56:32 AM  
Racist redneck idiot is a moving force on the highest court in the land.

I just love watching all the tools who are lawyers or aspiring lawyers come in here and try to defend how much of a joke our justice system is.
 
2014-09-03 01:56:50 AM  
Yeah, well, when you compare pulling out someone's spine a millimeter at a time with precision machinery, it makes being kicked in the nuts with a soccer shoe look positively humane.

can i writez opiniunz naow?
 
2014-09-03 01:57:21 AM  
I think I just read an article yesterday about how SCOTUS is more and more ruling based on information fed to them by questionable research that is sometimes later disproven. Here's a possible example of this in the wild.
 
2014-09-03 01:57:26 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: How do Supreme Court justices live so goddamned long? Seriously. Do they get special medical treatment that includes baby blood transfusions, or something? Scalia is going to be around at least another 40 years.

F*cker.


Four sitting justices, two right and two right leaning, were born in the 1930s. I predict they will all be replaced by the end of the next president's term, making the 2016 election the most judicially significant election in the next 30 years.
 
2014-09-03 01:59:37 AM  

Enigmamf: ecmoRandomNumbers: How do Supreme Court justices live so goddamned long? Seriously. Do they get special medical treatment that includes baby blood transfusions, or something? Scalia is going to be around at least another 40 years.

F*cker.

Four sitting justices, two right and two right leaning, were born in the 1930s. I predict they will all be replaced by the end of the next president's term, making the 2016 election the most judicially significant election in the next 30 years.


The real fix would be to eliminate the supreme court. Can we get a constitutional amendment for that?
 
2014-09-03 02:02:25 AM  

wesmon: Enigmamf: ecmoRandomNumbers: How do Supreme Court justices live so goddamned long? Seriously. Do they get special medical treatment that includes baby blood transfusions, or something? Scalia is going to be around at least another 40 years.

F*cker.

Four sitting justices, two right and two right leaning, were born in the 1930s. I predict they will all be replaced by the end of the next president's term, making the 2016 election the most judicially significant election in the next 30 years.

The real fix would be to eliminate the supreme court. Can we get a constitutional amendment for that?


yeah, whenever a law is contested, we can just start offering a payout, incremented $10,000 a turn, to each person in the house. when a person from a side takes it, their vote is removed until one side has enough votes and no further offers are accepted.

/this is why i was asked to help the founding fathers out a bit, on the fine print
 
2014-09-03 02:02:55 AM  
Justice Scalia embodies everything that is wrong with the u.s.
 
2014-09-03 02:03:10 AM  
Scalia's response: "The 1789 edition of Webster's Dictionary does not contain an entry for DNA, therefore it has no evidentiary value and no place in a court of law, and I have serious doubts that it's even a real thing. NOW OFF WITH HIS HEAD"
 
2014-09-03 02:05:48 AM  

Enigmamf: ecmoRandomNumbers: How do Supreme Court justices live so goddamned long? Seriously. Do they get special medical treatment that includes baby blood transfusions, or something? Scalia is going to be around at least another 40 years.

F*cker.

Four sitting justices, two right and two right leaning, were born in the 1930s. I predict they will all be replaced by the end of the next president's term, making the 2016 election the most judicially significant election in the next 30 years.


They're trying to run out the clock and praying to Catholic Jeebus that a Republican is elected in 2016. I hope they die disappointed and distraught.
 
2014-09-03 02:06:58 AM  

wesmon: Racist redneck idiot is a moving force on the highest court in the land.

I just love watching all the tools who are lawyers or aspiring lawyers come in here and try to defend how much of a joke our justice system is.


Huh?

Personal details
Born March 11, 1936 in Trenton, NJ.
 
2014-09-03 02:08:35 AM  

sobriquet by any other name: wesmon: Enigmamf: ecmoRandomNumbers: How do Supreme Court justices live so goddamned long? Seriously. Do they get special medical treatment that includes baby blood transfusions, or something? Scalia is going to be around at least another 40 years.

F*cker.

Four sitting justices, two right and two right leaning, were born in the 1930s. I predict they will all be replaced by the end of the next president's term, making the 2016 election the most judicially significant election in the next 30 years.

The real fix would be to eliminate the supreme court. Can we get a constitutional amendment for that?

yeah, whenever a law is contested, we can just start offering a payout, incremented $10,000 a turn, to each person in the house. when a person from a side takes it, their vote is removed until one side has enough votes and no further offers are accepted.

/this is why i was asked to help the founding fathers out a bit, on the fine print


The difference being that we still have nominal control over the House because we can vote for them. The Supreme Court is unelected and has supreme jurisdiction and final say. The most undemocratic institution in our system of government.
 
2014-09-03 02:10:24 AM  

eas81: wesmon: Racist redneck idiot is a moving force on the highest court in the land.

I just love watching all the tools who are lawyers or aspiring lawyers come in here and try to defend how much of a joke our justice system is.

Huh?

Personal details
Born March 11, 1936 in Trenton, NJ.


You really think that the racist rednecks only come from the south? Very naive, to say the least.
 
2014-09-03 02:12:04 AM  
And Scalia won't enough notice.
 
2014-09-03 02:16:48 AM  
Meh.  If we would have executed him and his brother, there would be less rapey and murder.  Scalia was right.  Sorry about the next victim.
 
2014-09-03 02:18:49 AM  

tbeatty: Meh.  If we would have executed him and his brother, there would be less rapey and murder.  Scalia was right.  Sorry about the next victim.


Are you planning on raping him and his brother?
 
2014-09-03 02:20:06 AM  

wesmon: sobriquet by any other name: wesmon: Enigmamf: ecmoRandomNumbers: How do Supreme Court justices live so goddamned long? Seriously. Do they get special medical treatment that includes baby blood transfusions, or something? Scalia is going to be around at least another 40 years.

F*cker.

Four sitting justices, two right and two right leaning, were born in the 1930s. I predict they will all be replaced by the end of the next president's term, making the 2016 election the most judicially significant election in the next 30 years.

The real fix would be to eliminate the supreme court. Can we get a constitutional amendment for that?

yeah, whenever a law is contested, we can just start offering a payout, incremented $10,000 a turn, to each person in the house. when a person from a side takes it, their vote is removed until one side has enough votes and no further offers are accepted.

/this is why i was asked to help the founding fathers out a bit, on the fine print

The difference being that we still have nominal control over the House because we can vote for them. The Supreme Court is unelected and has supreme jurisdiction and final say. The most undemocratic institution in our system of government.


And the whole point of the Court is to be the most conservative (not hurr durr current political situation conservative but cautious about change/not overreaching) portion of political machinery.

Checks and balances exist for a reason. Yes, the Court is deliberate. That's a feature, not a bug.
 
2014-09-03 02:21:58 AM  

shower_in_my_socks: Adding more irony, Scalia later said about this decision: "It should be noted at the outset that the dissent does not discuss a single case -- not one -- in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent's name would be shouted from the rooftops by the abolition lobby."


I've always hated that argument because it's so willfully blind.

There's almost certainly hundreds of innocent people who were executed before DNA evidence could have exonerated them solely based on the numbers of people exonerated since the introduction of DNA testing, but once someone's been executed, we stop trying to find evidence to exonerate them because THEY'VE BEEN FARKING EXECUTED.

You might as well ask why we don't try to convict dead people for crimes they committed when they were alive - is that "proof" that they were innocent?
 
2014-09-03 02:22:21 AM  
He's a special kind of redneck.  He's rich and from the North.
 
2014-09-03 02:27:32 AM  

InitialCommentGuy: wesmon: sobriquet by any other name: wesmon: Enigmamf: ecmoRandomNumbers: How do Supreme Court justices live so goddamned long? Seriously. Do they get special medical treatment that includes baby blood transfusions, or something? Scalia is going to be around at least another 40 years.

F*cker.

Four sitting justices, two right and two right leaning, were born in the 1930s. I predict they will all be replaced by the end of the next president's term, making the 2016 election the most judicially significant election in the next 30 years.

The real fix would be to eliminate the supreme court. Can we get a constitutional amendment for that?

yeah, whenever a law is contested, we can just start offering a payout, incremented $10,000 a turn, to each person in the house. when a person from a side takes it, their vote is removed until one side has enough votes and no further offers are accepted.

/this is why i was asked to help the founding fathers out a bit, on the fine print

The difference being that we still have nominal control over the House because we can vote for them. The Supreme Court is unelected and has supreme jurisdiction and final say. The most undemocratic institution in our system of government.

And the whole point of the Court is to be the most conservative (not hurr durr current political situation conservative but cautious about change/not overreaching) portion of political machinery.

Checks and balances exist for a reason. Yes, the Court is deliberate. That's a feature, not a bug.


Except that you are wrong. This was never a feature. The Supreme Court never had the power it now has until it gave itself that power back in the early 1800s. The Constitution never explicitly gave the Supreme Court the power it has. The court maneuvered to give itself that power and we have never questioned it...

Well, none of us except President Andrew Jackson. He disregarded a court decision and went through with the Trail of Tears. I don't defend him for that decision but I very much support his choice to ignore the court.
 
2014-09-03 02:34:33 AM  

shower_in_my_socks: Adding more irony, Scalia later said about this decision: "It should be noted at the outset that the dissent does not discuss a single case -- not one -- in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent's name would be shouted from the rooftops by the abolition lobby."


He's saying "We know we haven't erroneously executed somebody because if we had, we'd know about it."  Really, that's exactly what he's saying.

That quality of thinking proves he shouldn't be in charge of deciding anything.  Not even lunch.
 
2014-09-03 02:35:15 AM  

tbeatty: Meh.  If we would have executed him and his brother, there would be less rapey and murder.  Scalia was right.  Sorry about the next victim.


Thank you for giving me the final straw. Buh-bye.
 
2014-09-03 02:36:02 AM  

wesmon: Enigmamf: ecmoRandomNumbers: How do Supreme Court justices live so goddamned long? Seriously. Do they get special medical treatment that includes baby blood transfusions, or something? Scalia is going to be around at least another 40 years.

F*cker.

Four sitting justices, two right and two right leaning, were born in the 1930s. I predict they will all be replaced by the end of the next president's term, making the 2016 election the most judicially significant election in the next 30 years.

The real fix would be to eliminate the supreme court. Can we get a constitutional amendment for that?


I'd be happy with changing it from a lifetime appointment to, say, 20 years or so.
 
2014-09-03 02:36:11 AM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: That McCollum was wrongfully convicted doesn't change the nature of the crime or the visceral reaction that people have to it


holy shiat, yes it does.  wrongful convictions is one of the best arguments against capital punishment, moran.
 
2014-09-03 02:42:58 AM  

IamAwake: Adolf Oliver Nipples: That McCollum was wrongfully convicted doesn't change the nature of the crime or the visceral reaction that people have to it

holy shiat, yes it does.  wrongful convictions is one of the best arguments against capital punishment, moran.


Everything he said is absolutely right. And that is why we should not have the death penalty and we shouldn't have courts that allow evidence that is entirely geared towards inflaming the jury.

The real argument against the death penalty is easy. Murder is wrong, no matter who does it. In fact, it is even more wrong when the state commits the murder, no matter if the defendant is guilty or not.
 
2014-09-03 02:45:53 AM  

fusillade762: wesmon: Enigmamf: ecmoRandomNumbers: How do Supreme Court justices live so goddamned long? Seriously. Do they get special medical treatment that includes baby blood transfusions, or something? Scalia is going to be around at least another 40 years.

F*cker.

Four sitting justices, two right and two right leaning, were born in the 1930s. I predict they will all be replaced by the end of the next president's term, making the 2016 election the most judicially significant election in the next 30 years.

The real fix would be to eliminate the supreme court. Can we get a constitutional amendment for that?

I'd be happy with changing it from a lifetime appointment to, say, 20 years or so.


Yeah, living to 100 wasn't exactly common then. We've got a potential 80 year lag in social attitude.
 
2014-09-03 02:46:26 AM  

eas81: Huh?

Personal details
Born March 11, 1936 in Trenton, NJ.


Are you saying that there aren't racist people in NJ?
 
2014-09-03 02:46:45 AM  

Triumph: SilentStrider: Scalia is an idiot.

He's not an idiot. He's wrong, which is worse. Perhaps the Pope can straighten him out on his pro-life reasoning.


No, I agree with the previous poster. For all his jargon and pontificating, Scalia is rather dumb.
 
2014-09-03 02:48:13 AM  

wesmon: IamAwake: Adolf Oliver Nipples: That McCollum was wrongfully convicted doesn't change the nature of the crime or the visceral reaction that people have to it

holy shiat, yes it does.  wrongful convictions is one of the best arguments against capital punishment, moran.

Everything he said is absolutely right. And that is why we should not have the death penalty and we shouldn't have courts that allow evidence that is entirely geared towards inflaming the jury.

The real argument against the death penalty is easy. Murder is wrong, no matter who does it. In fact, it is even more wrong when the state commits the murder, no matter if the defendant is guilty or not.


i'm shocked - shocked - it would be hard to convey, what with us being a christian nation and all.

/bzzzzt
 
2014-09-03 02:50:53 AM  

tbeatty: Meh.  If we would have executed him and his brother, there would be less rapey and murder.  Scalia was right.  Sorry about the next victim.


Man, I really hope that's the dumbest thing I'll read today.
 
2014-09-03 02:52:30 AM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Triumph: SilentStrider: Scalia is an idiot.

He's not an idiot. He's wrong, which is worse. Perhaps the Pope can straighten him out on his pro-life reasoning.

No, I agree with the previous poster. For all his jargon and pontificating, Scalia is rather dumb.


Justice Scalia Makes Epic Blunder In Supreme Court Opinion

Scalia Contradicts Himself On Respect For Congress In DOMA Dissent

Throw in another vote for "Dumb". Or at least "Approaching senile".
 
2014-09-03 02:57:46 AM  

sobriquet by any other name: wesmon: IamAwake: Adolf Oliver Nipples: That McCollum was wrongfully convicted doesn't change the nature of the crime or the visceral reaction that people have to it

holy shiat, yes it does.  wrongful convictions is one of the best arguments against capital punishment, moran.

Everything he said is absolutely right. And that is why we should not have the death penalty and we shouldn't have courts that allow evidence that is entirely geared towards inflaming the jury.

The real argument against the death penalty is easy. Murder is wrong, no matter who does it. In fact, it is even more wrong when the state commits the murder, no matter if the defendant is guilty or not.

i'm shocked - shocked - it would be hard to convey, what with us being a christian nation and all.

/bzzzzt


I'm the most atheistic person you would meet, and I recognize that the "Christians" in our nation vary. The black Christians, who are mostly southern Baptist, are strongly against the death penalty. The white Christians are majority in favor of the death penalty.

So yeah, it is a racial thing. I said it.
 
2014-09-03 03:16:46 AM  

wesmon: The difference being that we still have nominal control over the House because we can vote for them. The Supreme Court is unelected and has supreme jurisdiction and final say. The most undemocratic institution in our system of government.


so yah ...
we elect local judges in illinois ... and well, we get trash as judges
appointed judges have the benefit of often (not always) being qualified for the job.

you might not like SCOTUS, but SCOTUS is what has made this country great. slow but sure.
abortion, miscegenation, soon gay marriage

appointed judges are one of the FEW ways to avoid the tyranny of the masses  
without them, we would have a state religion ... shudder
 
2014-09-03 03:21:07 AM  

Dansker: tbeatty: Meh.  If we would have executed him and his brother, there would be less rapey and murder.  Scalia was right.  Sorry about the next victim.

Man, I really hope that's the dumbest thing I'll read today.


Pffffftt, DNA, what is that, some kind of thing?
 
2014-09-03 03:21:25 AM  

namatad: wesmon: The difference being that we still have nominal control over the House because we can vote for them. The Supreme Court is unelected and has supreme jurisdiction and final say. The most undemocratic institution in our system of government.

so yah ...
we elect local judges in illinois ... and well, we get trash as judges
appointed judges have the benefit of often (not always) being qualified for the job.

you might not like SCOTUS, but SCOTUS is what has made this country great. slow but sure.
abortion, miscegenation, soon gay marriage

appointed judges are one of the FEW ways to avoid the tyranny of the masses  
without them, we would have a state religion ... shudder


Are you even aware of our history? The Supreme Court gave itself the power it has, it was not written in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has been responsible for as many grossly wrong decisions as it has done right, Separate but Equal comes immediately to mind.

I really don't see how you could think that an undemocratic institution should have control of our laws in this country .
 
2014-09-03 03:24:08 AM  
Scalia is not a dumb man..He IS,however, narrow minded and hard headed. And those can be much worse than being just ignorant. Everything for him is filtered through his religious and personal
history..He is not really pragmatic, in that he only uses his own echo chamber of reality. He is also a big man and loud..He can out shout/argue people down. That combination with his narrow minded
and hard headed demeanor makes him so dangerous.He can simply bully his opinion over others and feel smug about doing so..And if he's wrong, well, go to confession and all is forgiven..
 
2014-09-03 03:34:49 AM  

make me some tea: I think I just read an article yesterday about how SCOTUS is more and more ruling based on information fed to them by questionable research that is sometimes later disproven. Here's a possible example of this in the wild.


Especially in highly technical cases it becomes a war of the amicus briefs. The DNA patent case in the previous term none of the justices knew what the fark anybody was talking about with the science.
 
Displayed 50 of 216 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report