tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3704399.post4101584589211855864..comments2023-10-26T04:53:21.986-05:00Comments on <a href="http://huckupchuck.blogspot.com">The Huck Upchuck</a>: Scalia and his Cafeteria CatholicismHuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15878450464298055466noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3704399.post-3657919729377903042009-08-20T20:46:25.165-05:002009-08-20T20:46:25.165-05:00But at the end of the day, I think that might make...<i>But at the end of the day, I think that might make me a good man but a poor judge.</i><br /><br />I think this is Dershowitz's point about Scalia's statement that he would have to quit the bench if he found himself forced to be a "good" judge, whose adherence to established law, would require him to support an immoral act such as executing someone who is innocent. Scalia set this litmus test up for himself. Scalia has said that if and when being a "good" judge would require him also to be a "bad" man, he'd quit being a judge because maintaining his moral standing is more important.<br /><br /><i>And let's also be clear about one thing: the true criminals and moral reprobates in this story are the 9 "eyewitnesses" who falsely testified against the defendant in a murder trial, knowing it would result in his death sentence.</i><br /><br />No arguments from me. I agree with you 100% on this point. Yet that does nothing to exculpate Scalia. At one level, if Scalia has the power to stop an innocent man from being unjustly executed, and yet doesn't do so, then he is just as complicit in knowingly sending an innocent man to his death as these other "criminals and moral reprobates." Two wrongs do not make a right.Huckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15878450464298055466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3704399.post-23905318670144148942009-08-20T17:19:36.583-05:002009-08-20T17:19:36.583-05:00whoops, didn't mean to post that anonymously.....whoops, didn't mean to post that anonymously... it was me.Ericnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3704399.post-76702242260060487462009-08-20T17:19:03.440-05:002009-08-20T17:19:03.440-05:00"And doesn't the Supreme Court of the US ..."And doesn't the Supreme Court of the US exist partly to rectify injustices meted out at the state level, especially when state courts are either unable or unwilling to act on this injustice? "<br /><br />That's certainly the right question to ask, but I think the answer is tricky. Would you agree that there are times where the court's duty is to interpret a law supercedes the court's duty to actually pursue a just outcome as a result of that law? <br /><br />We'd all like more common sense in the law, but the job of the Supreme Court is not to be an arbiter of common sense, but to interpret whether or not laws are codified in a Constitutionally coherent manner. Does that mean laws can be morally atrocious but 'legally' coherent? It does, and nobody like that, but when you make it any other way, you tilt the court towards political and anti-intellectual dealings.<br /><br />Now, could I stomach making a decision like Scalia's and Thomas's? No, I'd go with my understanding of right and wrong. But at the end of the day, I think that might make me a good man but a poor judge.<br /><br />And let's also be clear about one thing: the true criminals and moral reprobates in this story are the 9 "eyewitnesses" who falsely testified against the defendant in a murder trial, knowing it would result in his death sentence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3704399.post-29004626725626174892009-08-20T16:34:56.652-05:002009-08-20T16:34:56.652-05:00Well, that's a fair question, Eric. But it...Well, that's a fair question, Eric. But it's irrelevant to the ability of Scalia to stay the execution. Maybe the state court is composed of a majority of justices who hold Scalia's opinion and are deferring on procedural grounds, too? And doesn't the Supreme Court of the US exist partly to rectify injustices meted out at the state level, especially when state courts are either unable or unwilling to act on this injustice? Thank God Scalia and Thomas were in the minority on this decision, because now an innocent man is likely spared from execution.Huckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15878450464298055466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3704399.post-27692347233427995372009-08-20T08:54:21.297-05:002009-08-20T08:54:21.297-05:00It certainly sounds like a rediculous case (I know...It certainly sounds like a rediculous case (I know nothing about it other than what I've read here), but one has to wonder why, if the evidence against him was so poor, his execution wasn't stayed at the state level?Ericnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3704399.post-22557700511356031362009-08-20T08:36:17.751-05:002009-08-20T08:36:17.751-05:00Yes, he did:
Fordham Law Class Collects Personal ...Yes, he did:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.abajournal.com/news/fordham_law_class_collects_scalia_info_justice_is_steamed" rel="nofollow">Fordham Law Class Collects Personal Info About Scalia; Supreme Ct. Justice Is Steamed</a><br /><br /><i>And, as Scalia himself made clear in a statement to Above the Law, he isn't happy about the invasion of his privacy:<br /><br />"Professor Reidenberg's exercise is an example of <b>perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment</b>. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any," the justice says, among other comments.</i>Maitrihttp://vatul.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3704399.post-3830343755347803612009-08-20T08:32:07.731-05:002009-08-20T08:32:07.731-05:00Isn't this the same man who, when his personal...Isn't this the same man who, when his personal records were published, said "Just because you can, common sense dictates that you shouldn't?"Maitrihttp://vatul.netnoreply@blogger.com