The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

Yesterday's court ruling in Osborne was simply one of the most absurd and appalling rulings I have ever read. Chief Justice Roberts should be ashamed of himself. Because of his ruling, innocent men are going to die in prison or via the death penalty. It really is that simple. What is absolutely shocking about the ruling is how utterly dishonest it is. Roberts is usually a careful judge who at least can state the legal issue accurately. In this ruling, his portrayal of the facts and legal questions in the case is one dishonest statement after another. To wit:

DNA testing has an unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty. The availability of new DNA testing technologies, however, cannot mean that every criminal conviction, or even every criminal conviction involving biological evidence, is suddenly in doubt. The task of establishing rules to harness DNA's power to prove innocence without unnecessarily overthrowing the established criminal justice system belongs primarily to the legislature.

 

In the very first sentence of his holding he admits that DNA testing can conclusively prove guilt or innocence in many cases. That will be important to remember a little later. But how about the blatantly dishonest statement of the legal issues at stake? No one is suggesting that "every criminal conviction is suddenly in doubt" or that providing due process in cases where DNA evidence is available requires "overthrowing the established criminal justice system." He is plainly erecting a straw man to knock down, something routine in chatroom debates but far beneath a Supreme Court justice. And it only gets worse:

While Osborne does have a liberty interest in pursuing the postconviction relief granted by the State, the Ninth Circuit erred in extending the Brady right of pretrial disclosure to the postconviction context. Osborne has already been found guilty and therefore has only a limited liberty interest in postconviction relief.

So they admit that he has a liberty interest in accessing the evidence - obviously, for crying out loud, since his very liberty is at stake. But somehow that stake is diminished in Roberts' mind once the trial takes place, even after admitting earlier that the DNA evidence could prove him innocent. This is an absolutely bizarre bit of thinking.

 

The majority of the court seems to think that due process is somehow entirely separate from questions of guilt or innocence. But that is not only nonsense, it's dangerous nonsense. We guarantee due process not only as a matter of principle but also for the purely pragmatic reason that it helps lead to the truth. If the point of the criminal justice system is not to distinguish guilt or innocence as accurately as humanly possible, then it's time to scrap the entire system.

 

There is nothing inadequate about Alaska's postconviction relief procedures in general or its methods for applying those procedures to persons seeking access to evidence for DNA testing. The State provides a substantive right to be released on a sufficiently compelling showing of new evidence that establishes innocence. It also provides for discovery in postconviction proceedings, and has--through judicial decision--specified that such discovery is available to those seeking access to evidence for DNA testing. These procedures are similar to those provided by federal law and the laws of other States, and they satisfy due process. The same is true for Osborne's reliance on a claimed federal right to be released upon proof of "actual innocence." Even assuming such a right exists, which the Court has not decided and does not decide, there is no due process problem, given the procedures available to access evidence for DNA testing.

 

A rather ironic statement in a case where the plaintiff is being denied access to evidence for DNA testing, don't you think? "The system works perfectly, it allows access to DNA evidence. And the fact that it denied access to this man has no bearing on the validity of that previous statement." This is absolutely ludicrous reasoning.

 

But perhaps worst of all:

There is no long history of a right of access to state evidence for DNA testing that might prove innocence. "The mere novelty of such a claim is reason enough to doubt that 'substantive due process' sustains it."

Of course there's no long history of a right to access DNA evidence for testing. You know why? Because we've only had DNA testing for a couple of decades.

 

Most Supreme Court rulings have at least minimally plausible arguments on both sides. The cases that reach the court have vexed the lower courts and are typically close calls. This one is not. This one is nothing short of vile and disgusting. Innocent people will die as a result of it. And none of the five justices who signed on to the majority opinion could possibly care any less. Shame on them.

 

[lostfan]

StrangeSox, you're also a practicing lawyer right? I get you and Soxbadger confused sometimes.

[kapkomet]

Yesterday's court ruling in Osborne was simply one of the most absurd and appalling rulings I have ever read. Chief Justice Roberts should be ashamed of himself. Because of his ruling, innocent men are going to die in prison or via the death penalty. It really is that simple. What is absolutely shocking about the ruling is how utterly dishonest it is. Roberts is usually a careful judge who at least can state the legal issue accurately. In this ruling, his portrayal of the facts and legal questions in the case is one dishonest statement after another. To wit:

 

 

In the very first sentence of his holding he admits that DNA testing can conclusively prove guilt or innocence in many cases. That will be important to remember a little later. But how about the blatantly dishonest statement of the legal issues at stake? No one is suggesting that "every criminal conviction is suddenly in doubt" or that providing due process in cases where DNA evidence is available requires "overthrowing the established criminal justice system." He is plainly erecting a straw man to knock down, something routine in chatroom debates but far beneath a Supreme Court justice. And it only gets worse:

 

So they admit that he has a liberty interest in accessing the evidence - obviously, for crying out loud, since his very liberty is at stake. But somehow that stake is diminished in Roberts' mind once the trial takes place, even after admitting earlier that the DNA evidence could prove him innocent. This is an absolutely bizarre bit of thinking.

 

The majority of the court seems to think that due process is somehow entirely separate from questions of guilt or innocence. But that is not only nonsense, it's dangerous nonsense. We guarantee due process not only as a matter of principle but also for the purely pragmatic reason that it helps lead to the truth. If the point of the criminal justice system is not to distinguish guilt or innocence as accurately as humanly possible, then it's time to scrap the entire system.

 

 

 

A rather ironic statement in a case where the plaintiff is being denied access to evidence for DNA testing, don't you think? "The system works perfectly, it allows access to DNA evidence. And the fact that it denied access to this man has no bearing on the validity of that previous statement." This is absolutely ludicrous reasoning.

 

But perhaps worst of all:

 

Of course there's no long history of a right to access DNA evidence for testing. You know why? Because we've only had DNA testing for a couple of decades.

 

Most Supreme Court rulings have at least minimally plausible arguments on both sides. The cases that reach the court have vexed the lower courts and are typically close calls. This one is not. This one is nothing short of vile and disgusting. Innocent people will die as a result of it. And none of the five justices who signed on to the majority opinion could possibly care any less. Shame on them.

The problem is, if you don't do it the way that the Supreme Court ruled, in effect, every guilty plea is now turned on its ass. It basically throws out all court cases with a guilty plea based on all the evidence at trial. I mean, I understand your points, but how can you say that every case must now have a review with DNA evidence? The ruling doesn't say that they won't get a review, it just says that every case doesn't have the right to a review. Am I right?

[lostfan]

The problem is, if you don't do it the way that the Supreme Court ruled, in effect, every guilty plea is now turned on its ass. It basically throws out all court cases with a guilty plea based on all the evidence at trial. I mean, I understand your points, but how can you say that every case must now have a review with DNA evidence? The ruling doesn't say that they won't get a review, it just says that every case doesn't have the right to a review. Am I right?

I haven't read other than what StrangeSox posted, but it sounds like he's talking about in cases where DNA evidence is available. If that is the case, then it makes no sense to allow the review. If the conviction was correct, it will theoretically be upheld by DNA evidence... right? So where's the problem, what's Roberts talking about here?

[kapkomet]

I haven't read other than what StrangeSox posted, but it sounds like he's talking about in cases where DNA evidence is available. If that is the case, then it makes no sense to allow the review. If the conviction was correct, it will theoretically be upheld by DNA evidence... right? So where's the problem, what's Roberts talking about here?

That's where I'm hung up at too. I heard about this but I don't know the details. That's why I'm asking.

 

[lostfan]

That's where I'm hung up at too. I heard about this but I don't know the details. That's why I'm asking.

If what you're saying is the case, then yeah, the Supreme Court can't set that kind of precedent. But if it's limited to those cases, the ruling is a disaster.

[StrangeSox]

The problem is, if you don't do it the way that the Supreme Court ruled, in effect, every guilty plea is now turned on its ass. It basically throws out all court cases with a guilty plea based on all the evidence at trial. I mean, I understand your points, but how can you say that every case must now have a review with DNA evidence? The ruling doesn't say that they won't get a review, it just says that every case doesn't have the right to a review. Am I right?

 

From what I understand, since the trial, a new DNA test has been developed. The guy convicted of the crime wants to do this test and his defense will pay for it, but the state is refusing to give him access to the DNA evidence he needs. Essentially, he will get no review--he will not be allowed to test the evidence via a new method to possibly exonerate himself even if its at his own expense.

[StrangeSox]

Aside from the actual constitutional issue, it appears that Roberts' opinion is just pretty illogical anyway. So, even if he made the right decision, it was for the wrong reasons.

[kapkomet]

From what I understand, since the trial, a new DNA test has been developed. The guy convicted of the crime wants to do this test and his defense will pay for it, but the state is refusing to give him access to the DNA evidence he needs. Essentially, he will get no review--he will not be allowed to test the evidence via a new method to possibly exonerate himself even if its at his own expense.

 

 

Aside from the actual constitutional issue, it appears that Roberts' opinion is just pretty illogical anyway. So, even if he made the right decision, it was for the wrong reasons.

I'm really confused by this. They have a program down here in Dallas County where there's been about 30 guys get out of jail after DNA tests. I don't understand why they refuse the tests.

 

I do think that it's hard to overturn an original conviction based on evidence and what not - but at the same time - I do agree that if a test can be asked for and the additional evidence is there, they should get it.

 

I guess I don't understand what I'm missing here.

 

[StrangeSox]

Alaska doesn't have any prisoner access laws, that's what the issue is here. They can simply say "Sorry, we're not letting you have access to the evidence in order to retest. Enjoy your life sentence." And now the SCOTUS has said the same.

[kapkomet]

Alaska doesn't have any prisoner access laws, that's what the issue is here. They can simply say "Sorry, we're not letting you have access to the evidence in order to retest. Enjoy your life sentence." And now the SCOTUS has said the same.

Gotcha. Now I can re-read this stuff with that point of view and see if I can make any sense of it.

 

[Balta1701]

Here's the view of the Walpin matter from the left.

According to the wingnut version, Walpin is a heroic investigator who was ousted simply because he exposed misspending of hundreds of thousands of federal dollars by an Obama ally, namely former NBA star Kevin Johnson, who ran a nonprofit organization in Sacramento that received Americorps funding before he was elected mayor of the California state capital last fall. Walpin had to be removed on June 11, after he refused the president's request that he resign, because the White House was trying to cover up Johnson's wrongdoing and permit his city to receive federal stimulus money.

 

That simple and sinister scenario, like so many of the media descriptions of Whitewater, omits crucial facts.

 

It is true that Walpin found evidence of misuse and waste of Americorps funds by St. Hope Academy, a nonprofit community group started by Johnson after he retired from the NBA. It is true that Johnson and St. Hope have acknowledged that they must refund roughly half of the money that the group received from Washington. But it is also true that Walpin, a Republican activist attorney and trustee of the Federalist Society before Bush appointed him as inspector general, went well beyond his official mandate last year by publicizing supposed "criminal" wrongdoing by Johnson in the days before the Sacramento mayoral election.

 

And it is true as well that Lawrence Brown, the United States attorney in Northern California who received Walpin's findings, decided not to bring any criminal charges against Johnson and instead reached a settlement with him and St. Hope.

 

That settlement, filed last April, is a public document that reflects no great honor on Johnson, to put it mildly. But it also voided any possibility of a "coverup" by Obama or anyone in his administration. The case against Johnson had concluded months before the president acted to dismiss Walpin -- and in fact only drew attention to the case by doing so, as he must have known would happen.

 

Just as salient as the accusations against Johnson, however, are those brought by Brown against Walpin. A Republican named as the acting U.S. attorney by Bush, Brown filed a sharply worded complaint against Walpin with the oversight office for the federal inspectors general that charged him with ethical violations in an overzealous assault on Johnson and St. Hope. The U.S. attorney said that Walpin had "overstepped his authority by electing to provide my office with selective information and withholding other potentially significant information at the expense of determining the truth" -- in other words, Walpin had failed to provide substantive exculpatory facts to the U.S. attorney, while trying to push the government into opening a criminal probe of Johnson. During the election season in Sacramento, Brown noted that Walpin had sought publicity for his findings against Johnson in the local media before discussing them with the U.S. Attorney's Office, "hindering our investigation and handling of this matter."

[BigSqwert]

Those damn liberal Frenchies...

PARIS — President Nicolas Sarkozy said the Muslim burqa would not be welcome in France, calling the full-body religious gown a sign of the "debasement" of women.

 

In the first presidential address to parliament in 136 years, Sarkozy faced critics who fear the burqa issue could stigmatize France's Muslims and said he supported banning the garment from being worn in public.

 

"In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity," Sarkozy said to extended applause at the Chateau of Versailles, southwest of Paris.

 

"The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement _ I want to say it solemnly," he said. "It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic."

[Soxy]

Those damn liberal Frenchies...

That pisses me off.

[lostfan]

Not sure where else to put this, but nobody has seen SC Gov. Sanford for the past 4 days.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Not sure where else to put this, but nobody has seen SC Gov. Sanford for the past 4 days.

I almost started a thread on this. Apperently he is on a secluded personal vacation.

 

I get nervous when I hear about a republican official disappearing from the public eye to an undisclosed location where no one can find him... and the person he is with

[Soxy]

WaPo contest: pen the first paragraph of Dick Cheney's upcoming biography. . .

[BigSqwert]

This man should be beaten...

 

 

Scheuer: The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States. Because it's going to take a grass-roots, bottom-up pressure. Because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. It's an absurd situation again. Only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.

 

EDIT: Link to article

Edited July 1, 2009 by BigSqwert

[lostfan]

What the f***?

[StrangeSox]

We need a devastating attack on this country in order for us to start protecting ourselves from a devastating attack.

 

Scheuer just deployed a major weapon against the logic center of my brain.

[HuskyCaucasian]

"Only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary."

I, for one, support the Iranian "beat the hell out of you" for your own protection model.

[StrangeSox]

Nuttiness from Oklahoma, courtesy of State Representative Sally Kern:

 

WHEREAS, the people of Oklahoma have a strong tradition of reliance upon the Creator of the Universe; and

 

WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and

 

WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and

 

WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built; and

 

WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer; and

 

WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior;

 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we the undersigned elected officials of the people of Oklahoma, religious leaders and citizens of the State of Oklahoma, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world, solemnly declare that the HOPE of the great State of Oklahoma and of these United States, rests upon the Principles of Religion and Morality as put forth in the HOLY BIBLE

 

From the person who brought you:

Kern authored a bill, which passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives in March 2008, mandating that students who espouse Young Earth creationism still receive passing grades in Earth science classes

 

and

 

"Studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it's the death knell of this country. I honestly think it's the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam — which I think is a big threat, okay? Cause what's happening now is they are going after, in schools, two-year olds...And this stuff is deadly, and it's spreading, and it will destroy our young people, it will destroy this nation."[9][10]

[lostfan]

Vanity Fair has a pretty unflattering piece on Palin. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature...rah-palin200908

[BigSqwert]

Vanity Fair has a pretty unflattering piece on Palin. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature...rah-palin200908

Weird. I just finished reading that about 2 minutes ago.

[NorthSideSox72]

We need a devastating attack on this country in order for us to start protecting ourselves from a devastating attack.

 

Scheuer just deployed a major weapon against the logic center of my brain.

Who is this guy anyway? Nutjob, yes, but what is his day job?