US Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade

Sean.3516 · 14-05-2022 6:33pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119024259#Comment_119024259

Oh no! Not stare decisis!

Just more of people acting like they care about the "norms" and "procedures" of law and government when it doesn't go their way.

First of all if Stare Decisis were absolute then Dredd Scott wouldn't have been overturned, the decision that said blacks couldn't not be treated as citizens.

As Alito explains well in the decision, Stare Decisis can absolutely be overruled if a decision is as wrongly reasoned as both Roe and Dredd Scott.

Igotadose · 14-05-2022 6:54pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119061618#Comment_119061618

Dredd Scott was independent of Stare Decisis. The constitution was changed via the 13th amendment.

For what it's worth, Justice Taney (first RCC on the SCOTUS in fact) was applying the constitution as it stood

Sean.3516 · 14-05-2022 7:21pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119061592#Comment_119061592

You will never eliminate all abortions.

So? We'll never eliminate all robberies and murders either. What's your point? Even if abortion is substantially reduced, any pro-lifer would consider that a net-win overall.

The fact you seem to think it should be okay to force a woman to remain pregnant is just a tad awful.

Since I never forced her to get pregnant in the first place I feel this is more than a tad less awful than being ripped up with a curette and sucked into a sink like her unborn child could be.

However providing supports to women and their families will naturally lower the rate.

Abortion rates have been steadily declining already in the US as crisis pregnancy centres replace abortion clinics in red states and other trends like people having less sex in general.

Any reason why you're not commenting on the fact that a large proportion of abortions are by women who already have children?

This is about as relevant as the fact that a large proportion of women in general are pro-life. 43% in fact. I'm more interested in the merits of the issue.

Igotadose · 14-05-2022 7:25pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119061896#Comment_119061896

Abortions have been declining for lots of reasons. One big one is single mothers are keeping kids. Crisis pregnancy centers are pro-life s*holes is all, unregulated and probably dangerous. And as far as your views on rape go, get real. Rapes go badly underreported so you're extremely unlikely to know how many abortions are due to rape or incest. Also, most abortions are medical abortions not surgical. That's never stopped anti-choice like yourself from conjuring up boogeymen. And of course you're o.k. with forcing women to remain pregnant - you're a guy.

shoutyourabortion.com ftw

Sean.3516 · 14-05-2022 7:28pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119058763#Comment_119058763

Define "supposed to". Where does it say in the constitution that every nominee is entitled to hearings?

Also why do people think it's just the Senate's job to just rubber stamp whoever the President nominates? "advice and consent". That's the role of the Senate in nominations. If they don't like the cut of a nominee's jib they don't have to give him the time of day.

Igotadose · 14-05-2022 7:32pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119061934#Comment_119061934

The reason is, the nominees in question lied. That's what the concern is about. I know you *liked it* that they lied, but they lied. Problem is, there's nothing can be done - confirmation hearings are a joke, really no purpose to them if there's no ramifications for lying. Imagine if they'd gone on the court saying "Yep, I'll repeal it" and then said "Snag! Just kidding! I'm voting to uphold it!" But, that's not what's happening.

What Moscow Mitch did to delay Garland's hearing was 'legal.' Just pure power politics. Schumer could do the same if we get some GQP nutter in the WH in 2024 if the Democrats have the majority. Democrats have been way too nice through this whole thing, should've never let that loser Thomas on the court. ACB is just as bad.

Overheal · 14-05-2022 7:42pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119061618#Comment_119061618

Another user already explained the Reconstruction Era to you, and how Dred Scott while wildly unpopular as a decision, was principled and logical and didn't overturn a previous court decision so I don't see it having anything to do with Stare Decisis.

Sean.3516 · 14-05-2022 7:45pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119059518#Comment_119059518

Qualifications aren't all that matter. Judicial philosophy matters. One can be highly "qualified" in the conventional sense of the word and still be wrong in their judicial philosophy. There are different competing judicial philosophies in the US and politicians should have to consider that when deciding who to put on the court. Everyone knows this but no one admits it.

If Democrats only care about qualifications then why did they oppose Kavanaugh and Gorsuch? Yale and Harvard educated, both with experience on federal courts of appeal just like Ketanji Brown Jackson.

They opposed them on the basis of judicial philosophy of course. Which is fine. NONE of the politicians care about a qualified judge so much as a qualified judge who'll interpret the constitution they way they think it should be interpreted.

"qualifications" is just a mush word Democrats start throwing around when they don't want to admit this.

Christy42 · 14-05-2022 8:30pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119061535#Comment_119061535

1% >>>0%. I mean I support full freedom of choice but this will leave many US states without protection for rape victims so it is still important for me.

As for healthcare and education. Well it would reduce the number of abortions. Surely less abortions is what you want.

As for abandoning in poverty well it seems obvious it happens, especially in the US. Any society that is willing to f*** over children as soon as they are born is at best paying lip service to caring about the unborn.

Sean.3516 · 14-05-2022 9:04pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119062406#Comment_119062406

1% >>>0%. I mean I support full freedom of choice but this will leave many US states without protection for rape victims so it is still important for me.

If you are in favour of allowing abortion for any reason then you should be able to justify that on its own without making an emotional appeal on behalf of rape victims. Turning the abortion debate into a referendum on compassion for rape victims is a dishonest tactic when they make up 1% of the cases we're talking about.

In your mind, do you support any restrictions on abortion at all? If so, what are they?

As for healthcare and education. Well it would reduce the number of abortions. Surely less abortions is what you want.

If we're agreed that abortion is the killing of an unborn child then I'm baffled by people who pretend they would only surrender their right to have their unborn child killed if every difficulty that would arise from the birth of that child is subsidised by government.

Of course we don't even agree that abortion is the killing of an unborn child which is why even if we had a welfare utopia you would still be in favour of abortion on demand! Which is why I find that argument just as dishonest as the rape argument.

How about we "educate" people in the simple fact that ANY sexual intercourse involving fertile individuals may result in pregnancy. Even if contraception is used there still exists a small probability. "Educate" people to take some responsibility for their actions and consequences.

As for abandoning in poverty well it seems obvious it happens, especially in the US. Any society that is willing to f*** over children as soon as they are born is at best paying lip service to caring about the unborn.

So your saying that if I think an unborn child shouldn't killed in the womb yet I also reject the necessity of a massive welfare state as the sole solution to unplanned pregnancies then I'm only "paying lip service to caring about the unborn."

Without that welfare state you're f*cked so I'd be doing you a favour by just aborting you.

14-05-2022 9:09pm

They are willing to accept results of contraception failing.

It's called an abortion.

So yeah, being forced to have it

Sean.3516 · 15-05-2022 12:49am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119062796#Comment_119062796

What are you even talking about?

Also, the result of contraception failing is called....... conception.

That's literally what the word "contraception" means. Against conception. Contra is latin for against.

volchitsa · 15-05-2022 10:29am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119064775#Comment_119064775

I go skiing. I fall and break a leg. I have an operation to fix my leg. Therefore I had an operation as a result of skiing.

Nobody tells me I have to just put up with the broken leg and not get pins in it because I knew that I might have an accident while skiing. They don’t even look at whether or not my carelessness led to my fall before deciding what treatment I’m alllowed.

Now apply that to having sex, getting pregnant and dealing with the pregnancy by having an abortion.

Christy42 · 15-05-2022 2:13pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119062747#Comment_119062747

Because if you own life is barely scraping by then adding a child to the mix is not going to enable to get back on their feet. Or look after their other children. I would be against late term abortions without medical need but would need to consult with a doctor on what would constitute medical needs. Certainly medical staff involved in pregnancy and the medical issues around it should be heavily consulted in any laws to do with abortion. In the US pregnancy and birth is crazy expensive. Children are massively expensive to take care of. They hinder the ability of the mother to work so I have no idea how all this money is meant to appear from nothing. I can't also for see every reason for an abortion and have never been in that situation so I feel like legislating every situation is pretty impossible. Ask anyone from a clinic, they get plenty of "pro life" people in but those are always some "exception" to the rule.

I am pro choice but also in favour of implementing things that will reduce the number of abortions. Also all forms of child support should be available as soon as abortion is not an option. I mean lets at least be consistent on when something is a child, I mean anti choice people keep talking about an unborn child but I don't think I have seen this implemented. it isn't like there aren't costs before it is born.

Why are you so heavily trying to dodge the case of rape in abortions? Certainly not the most common but it is large enough that it should be legislated for. That is why it keeps coming up again. Will it be in every state? Rape is pretty difficult to prove generally so are you willing to simply take the word of the woman?

People are people and people will end up having sex. Sex education should be a part of everyone's education and contraceptives easily available. Yes it is just paying lip service. That seems pretty obvious, I don't get the sudden not caring about an actual baby that has been born. Especially as it is only going to be a law for poor people as the rest will have nice out of state camping trips.

Igotadose · 15-05-2022 5:20pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119062406#Comment_119062406

And, back in the USA:

Overheal · 15-05-2022 7:06pm

Widespread protests over the weekend, no indication of mass arrests, violence etc. from anywhere on the media spectrum

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/05/14/dc-bans-off-our-bodies-protest/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fb_news_token=jHtk3VPyZV5D36B%2FvDJaFQ%3D%3D.VIPaEyDv1pLh7Hvd22rUdFxvjcEm35gCl%2FTuFMGx6KOFIXbrmjd6d9h7EZ1ZDxRCDQqt4lpHTWhVoFIZ4leQy%2FmNuXHIalFzJ%2FEcaxQtaqMGFHbD5sx%2FZ9QJOeM%2F1jx3JqLy0zXl5JXyAmYM0%2BBK2xCewPvBw6l0OkLa%2BiXqnCgY6EkGuxUSBAhTRjiHpIud0Nx84HElyNOCbxNRQQFKZztSZZFHJi3X2OWQCGuqAEeNUX%2FFu3taZl545D8U%2BKRAcz8uDUIh8QcAN2urNiTk%2BnV6Y9BxZKqx5%2F4Ts%2Bhdcn%2B4f2y6xcRcd3bukE3ClrC60OmH0d0vcLsfQbcE%2FzHFhW8j3nO7yfwczx6OAiebGsg%3D&fbclid=IwAR36L0JM_WRtNT-MuqQBcfxVrJ64JRSuDsZVh_zTw6mHlLOE1-Dmbn9gD1w

Faugheen · 15-05-2022 7:35pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119067646#Comment_119067646

It's because the meedja is hiding all of it because they're all radical left WOKE boogeypeople

Overheal · 15-05-2022 7:38pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119067758#Comment_119067758

Must be working overtime to hide it from even the right wing blogosphere

Faugheen · 15-05-2022 7:39pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119067770#Comment_119067770

I'm sure they'll magic something up and the usual suspects will be here to tell us about it.

riclad · 16-05-2022 5:53am

I read most of the judges on the supreme Court are now Catholic, so basically all laws in the USA will now be judged as to how does agree with Catholic Church doctrine even if they do not say it out loud, American citizens have no right to privacy, if you follow this logic republicans will maybe make some forms of contraception illegal . Imagine how Irish people would feel if most Irish judges were Jewish of some other religion.and Irish law about women's rights were being changed to follow some religious doctrine that 90 per cent of Irish people do not believe in

I'm making a point I'm not trying to be anti Jewish or racist in any way

Most Americans s are not Catholic , 70 per cent of americans are in favour of abortion and the right to use contraception

What will happen is women's rights in states controlled by republicans will be severely limited

it will be like living in Ireland in The 70s if you live in Texas southern states and republicans are saying its not a big deal if roe vs wade is defeated

The democrats and Biden are low in the polls due to inflation. High Price of gas petrol and they can hardly pass bills in the senate or congress

in the midst of pandemic war in Ukraine the whole issue of climate change is being forgotten the price of basic goods is rising partly due to shortage of water drought

high temps in certain country's is starting to effect agricultural production

Igotadose · 16-05-2022 3:17pm

Interesting study about women denied abortion due to exceeding gestational limits. Worse health outcomes and socioeconomic results than those who were able to obtain abortions.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/05/15/1098347992/a-landmark-study-tracks-the-lasting-effect-of-having-an-abortion-or-being-denied?utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social

Some highlights:

We see a couple of areas where their lives dramatically diverge in outcomes [from women who got abortions]. The first is health. Consistent with the medical literature, carrying a pregnancy to term and delivering a child is much more physically risky than having an abortion, even a later abortion. We see much more severe physical health complications from birth, including most tragically, two women who died after delivery — one died of an infection and one died of a very common pregnancy complication.

The sample ended up looking very closely like the population of people who seek abortions nationally. So 60% of the women were already mothers. About half were in their 20s, which is typical. About three-quarters were already below the federal poverty level at the time they were seeking an abortion.

The people who seek abortions later in pregnancy were not substantively different from the people seeking abortion earlier, with the exception that they tended to have been a lot later in realizing they were pregnant....

Overheal · 16-05-2022 5:15pm

Thomas looking to finally talk ****

He's popular for rarely asking questions in oral arguments

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/clarence-thomas-sends-message-to-media-ill-leave-the-court-when-i-do-my-job-as-poorly-as-yours/

Now he wants to beef with the media. Oh yeah that will fix the courts public image.

Overheal · 16-05-2022 7:35pm

Are Republicans looking to pivot from calling the leak 'an insurrection?'

https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1526189817867927558?s=20&t=LxhEzRSk09-NskTDkIG7RA

Quin_Dub · 16-05-2022 8:04pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119071973#Comment_119071973

Does the inside track tell them it was a GOP supporter that leaked the info?

Overheal · 19-05-2022 8:15pm

Oklahoma legislature has passed a bill outlawing abortion from conception, it is expected to be signed in agreement by the Governor.

https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-house-passes-abortion-bill-conception/40049335

The bill includes provisions similar to the TX law that effectively deputize all citizens, but barr all state officials, from enforcing the law, thereby doing a sidestep around the violation of civil rights.

Rape, incest, and saving the life of the mother are excluded.

Dingaan · 19-05-2022 8:21pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119086883#Comment_119086883

Not a position I would support, however if the elected officials of Oklahoma decide this is the legislation they want then so be it.

Overheal · 19-05-2022 8:31pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119086918#Comment_119086918

There is, nothing unconstitutional about writing unconstitutional laws. So yeah, it's the consequence of elections.

Faugheen · 19-05-2022 9:16pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119086883#Comment_119086883

I would love to see how they are making exceptions for rape and incest work in a legal context. Will women have to prove their pregnancy was as a result of incest or rape or just have to make a report?

What if a report is made but police don't proceed with it?

Evil GOP bastards strike again.

Manic Moran · 19-05-2022 9:53pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119071973#Comment_119071973

It’s a question which was asked as soon as the leak happened. There is no criminal offense attached to the leak. The Marshal’s investigation can’t do more than result in a firing.

Hotblack Desiato · 19-05-2022 11:04pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119086918#Comment_119086918

Really? Have a miscarriage, go to jail. Already happening in Latin America.

Overheal · 20-05-2022 12:44am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119087141#Comment_119087141

It was linked to in the article:

https://legiscan.com/OK/text/HB4327/2022

When I skimmed it earlier I saw rape reported to police, I didn't see eg. a requirement for conviction or anything heinously illogical (any court case takes months, but typically years)

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119087339#Comment_119087339

I confess to not noting what Matt Gaetz initially said about on the day or morning after of. If he was Fire and Brimstone but now is suddenly Boys will be Boys or otherwise softening his rhetoric, (which is what I mistook it as at face value at least if that's not what it is) then it looks as if like he's either learned something knew or realized he needs to cover his party's ass in case it does turn out to be one of theirs.

Christy42 · 20-05-2022 9:55am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119087339#Comment_119087339

I don't really think Gaetz actually cares for the legality or not. I doubt you think he cares either. As soon as the leak came out there were hyperbolic comments on the leak being a massive deal as opposed to the content itself. Now they are obviously less sure which side leaked it (or think it is a Republican) and so they need to soften the rhetoric there.

Faugheen · 20-05-2022 10:08am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119071973#Comment_119071973

Completely missed this.

Guess it confirms my suspicions all along.

Now, who in the name of Ginni Thomas could it have been?

riclad · 21-05-2022 10:53pm

If you read the leaked document from the supreme court, it basically says people have no right to privacy,under the constitution, so if

argument is accepted , then it follows that the republican party, could take legal action to reduce acess to contraception , or make certain

contraceptives illegal, eg iuds, or the morning after pill.or for instance it could be made illegal to sell condoms to anyone under 18. in states like texas police could start surveillance on womens social media, or look at what they buy on amazon, eg if you know what a woman buys or what website,s , apps she uses that could be a good indication whether she is pregnant. Many extreme republicans would like to go back to the 50s, when womens rights were very limited, and it was not so easy to obtain contraceptives as it is now.

Quin_Dub · 23-05-2022 10:17am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119095559#Comment_119095559

I think that's the bit that people aren't really getting.

It's the potentially un-intended consequences of the change.

Aside from the immediate and obvious impact to Abortion services , the potential for all kinds of messing not just by Ultra Conservative right wingers is pretty significant.

If the "right to privacy" is no longer protected under the constitution who else could take advantage of that - Law Enforcement ? , "Big Tech"?? Stalkers??

Christy42 · 23-05-2022 12:20pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119101202#Comment_119101202

I am not so sure about unintended consequences. Unadvertised changes might be more accurate. There have been some minor politicians in the GOP raising voices in the direction of contraceptives.

Manic Moran · 23-05-2022 12:41pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119101202#Comment_119101202

That's a bit of a stretch. The Fourth Amendment is still a thing, I don't see anything indicating that the various privacy protections from law enforcement is going to change. As for the other two, the federal US courts do not currently protect against privacy intrusions by big tech or stalkers anyway. Constitutional protections are not applied against private entities, the bill of rights is really a list of "things the government cannot do".

rossie1977 · 23-05-2022 3:19pm

Isn't stopping at Roe vs Wade. Thus is a Trump endorsed candidate in Michigan btw

https://mobile.twitter.com/leftofcentermi/status/1527390618984402944

riclad · 24-05-2022 2:12am

If the right to privacy is gone it leaves the way open to ban certain contraceptives and gives permission to police to look at anyones data, eg is this woman visiting planned parenthood is this person helping a woman to travel or donating to medical services that provide abortion right wing Conservatives are getting ready to pass laws that maybe gives anyone the right to sue anyone who helps a woman travel to get an abortion

And of course police will be able to go to isps or Google apple and demand data that might show this person is helping a woman get an abortion or even just giving a person information on contraceptives or other medical procedures right now the police can easily ask for information from 3rd party's eg isps phone company's google or apple if someone is suspected of committing a criminal offense

Quin_Dub · 24-05-2022 10:50am

SCOTUS is on a roll now - The impact of the damage done by Trumps picks is going to be felt for decades to come

Last December, the Supreme Court gathered to hear oral arguments in Shinn v. Ramirez, a case that could mean life or death for Barry Jones, who sits on death row in Arizona for the rape and murder of his girlfriend’s 4-year-old daughter, Rachel.

In 2018, a federal court overturned Jones’ conviction, concluding that he had failed to receive effective counsel, a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. Had that happened, a federal judge ruled, “there is a reasonable probability that his jury would not have convicted him of any of the crimes with which he was charged and previously convicted.”

After losing in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Arizona’s attorney general appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. During those oral arguments, state prosecutors repeatedly argued that “innocence isn’t enough” of a reason to throw out Jones’ conviction.

On Monday morning, by a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court concurred: Barry Jones’ innocence is not enough to keep him off of death row. The state of Arizona can still kill Jones, even if there exists a preponderance of evidence that he committed no crime.

Another decades old Precedent just thrown out.

So now , if you are badly represented and evidence that potentially exonerates you wasn't brought forward by your defence team then you can do nothing about it - If it wasn't part of the original trial , tough.

"Better to execute an innocent person than run the risk of a guilty person getting off on a technicality" seems to be the position taken.

Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion saying amongst other things

Thomas justifies the court’s decision by arguing that a federal review imposes “significant costs” on state criminal justice systems that includes potentially overriding “the State’s sovereign power to enforce ‘societal norms through criminal law.’”

This just shows the utter hypocrisy - "You can't kill a fetus, it has rights , but yeah go ahead and execute that innocent person because carrying out due diligence and correcting an earlier miscarriage of justice is just too expensive and so much of a hassle"

Also - While we're here , F*ck the Arizona Attorney General , "Innocence is not enough of a reason to overturn the conviction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Where do you even start to measure the moral bankruptcy of that Statement??

Faugheen · 24-05-2022 10:59am

Do I need to describe Republicans again or do we get the picture at this stage?

Manic Moran · 24-05-2022 1:28pm

Legally, the AZ AG is correct. There is a post conviction process in place to address such things, which is the meat of the problem SCOTUS was addressing. Did the prisoners correctly follow that process? There are not decades of precedent here which are being overturned, the problem is that there is no precedent at all. The argument is over whether the Martinez holding can be read to include the Shinn case or not. From SCOTUSblog.

In Shinn v. Ramirez and Jones, two men on Arizona’s death row raised claims in habeas corpus proceedings that their trial attorneys were constitutionally ineffective – one for failing to investigate evidence suggesting his client could not have committed the crime, and the other for failing to investigate her client’s intellectual disability, which could have spared him the death penalty. Although the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Martinez v. Ryan permitted defendants to raise such claims for the first time in federal court, on Monday the court ruled 6-3 that they cannot develop evidence to support those claims.

For those who want to read the actual opinions, both majority and dissent , it can be found here. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1009_19m2.pdf

It’s over 40 pages long, and is not a simple matter. I certainly won’t offer an opinion as to which side is correct as I don’t have the hours to spend looking up the case law and legislation cited by both sides, but I will observe that none of the nine judges care (in their written opinions, at least) whether or not the prisoners are actually innocent. That’s not the federal judiciary’s role, they only care that federal laws are applied in the determination of guilt or innocence.

Quin_Dub · 24-05-2022 1:57pm

But part of the Arizona AG's argument in front of SCOTUS was that "Innocence alone wasn't sufficient reason to overturn a conviction"

Surely that is the single most important reason for over-turning a conviction, particularly a sentence of death??

And part of Thomas' reasoning for the opinion was that it was too onerous a burden on the State to investigate things of this nature - So proving a person is worthy of execution shouldn't require to much effort on the part of the Prosecution?

The whole thing is just so contrary to common sense and decency.

Primarily starting with the Arizona AG who when faced with this specific case felt it was better to go to the Supreme court to protect their earlier decision rather that call a new trial or simply release the guy.

Overheal · 24-05-2022 2:42pm

That’s what I’m stuck on too. The court is supposed to be there as the last check valve. These 9 engineers tasked with saying how the legal engine works decided to let an innocent man die in the works because they couldn’t be arsed to provide that relief valve?

Can only hope now that Biden commutes his sentence since we’ve established he’s innocent.

Quin_Dub · 24-05-2022 2:57pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119107457#Comment_119107457

It's also so very consistent with the GOP mantra of "If you are poor , F**k you" - Health care , Employment law and now it seems even "The right to a fair trial" all get hit with the same Conservative dogma.

The Guy got assigned an over-worked public defender who also just wasn't very good at his job , who then dropped the ball in a big way so now because he was too poor to hire his own team of lawyers he gets the death penalty for something that evidence suggests he didn't do - Evidence that was present at the time of his case that due to incompetence or oversight his public defender didn't use.

Manic Moran · 24-05-2022 3:00pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119107457#Comment_119107457

It's not their job to provide a relief valve. Guilt or innocence of a state crime is not within the jurisdiction of the federal system. Even POTUS cannot provide any relief like a pardon, the federal oversight on the matter is purely on procedural matters. Does the AZ system fall within the procedural limitations and protections provided by the Constitution and Congress? If so, the federal hands are tied. The dispute between the majority and dissent is purely on the matter of this question.

Surely that is the single most important reason for over-turning a conviction, particularly a sentence of death??

No, it's the most important reason for finding a mechanism for overturning the conviction, however. The legal reasoning would be something like "Newly discovered evidence" or "error at trial." Determination of guilt or innocence is up to a jury. Then there are other options other than post-conviction motions to stay sentences, up to governors' pardons.

Quin_Dub · 24-05-2022 3:12pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119107579#Comment_119107579

But the SCOTUS ruling now says that the can't introduce New Evidence to support any "errors at trial"

How exactly are you supposed to show that your lawyer didn't provide adequate council if you aren't allowed to show evidence of the things they didn't do?

You can't say "My Lawyer never asked about XYZ evidence/witness etc." now , because if XYZ wasn't covered in the original court case , you can't bring it up.

It's just nonsense..

Manic Moran · 24-05-2022 5:34pm

Not quite. The Arizona process does allow such new argument to be brought up as part of the post-conviction mechanism. If your trial lawyer screwed up, you're supposed to bring it up when you get your post-conviction hearing.

The problem here is that of the various arguments presented by the prisoners at the post-conviction hearing, they left out a few which they then decided they wanted to bring up later in the process. This is a fairly basic principle in US jurisprudence, there's an evidentiary phase which is normally the lower court, and once the evidentiary phase is complete, it's generally too late to bring in new argument for the appeals phases which revolves only around matters of law, not of fact (Which is why sometimes cases will be remanded to lower courts for factual determinations.

From the opinion

"And the doctrine of procedural default—“an important ‘corollary’ to the exhaustion requirement,” Davila v. Davis, 582 U. S. ___, ___—generally prevents federal courts from hearing any federal claim that was not presented to the state courts “consistent with [the State’s] own procedural rules,” "

This is different from the idea that "new evidence has been discovered" which will allow a reboot of the process, but in this case, there was no 'new evidence discovered', because the facts were known before the post-conviction hearings, just not entered into the record. In effect, you're arguing "We lost the trial because my lawyer was incompetent, and we need a review" followed by "We lost the review because my new lawyer was also incompetent, we need a review to the review." Which, in theory, can go on ad infinitum.

The bottom line, though, is that this is a procedural problem for Arizona to sort out, not the Federal Court.

It's worth noting the Federal law on the matter which lays out when the prisoner can appeal to the federal courts, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2254

Overheal · 24-05-2022 7:36pm

I only get this kind of cogence and clarity from other people in message boards. Thanks NTM.

riclad · 25-05-2022 5:42am

Judge Thomas is the worst kind of Conservative extremist., the US government spends billions to spend on nuclear weapons but a judge thinks its too much of a burden to ask for a new trial if there's signicant evidence to show some one is innocent of a crime and the evidence was not presented at the first trial or the lawyer was not competent to put evidence on the record. It seems crazy that new evidence cannot be presented if it shows the person is innocent of a crime . And to say someone, s nnocence is not relevant in deciding if there should be a retrial.?

US Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade

Comments