Posted on 05/24/2022 1:21:27 AM PDT by zeestephen
The ruling in Shinn v Ramirez was written by Clarence Thomas...Thomas presented the case as one of states' rights. He said that federal courts should not be allowed to override the states' "core power to enforce criminal law."...the state of Arizona argued that the condemned men should not be allowed to present new evidence to a federal judge when they had failed to do so previously in state court.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
"Thomas's opinion also overturns previous Supreme Court rulings, in an abrogation of the Court's own adherence to the principle of stare decisis – that is, being faithful to precedent."
The Guardian failed to mention any state safeguards in place to prevent the execution of an innocent man.
As far as I know, every state execution requires the signature of the Governor, and most states have an expert advisory panel that examines every detail of a death penalty case.
It wasn’t just Thomas’ opinion. He wrote the majority opinion in a 6-3 decision.
Limited space. Besides the 6-3, everything else should have been obvious.
A also assume that people who are interested in the law will actually read the linked article.
What’s obvious is The Guardian’s need to label it a rightwing court and insinuate Thomas is a Trump-inspired new-hire or something. IMO, in its whole tone of the article it also (in this case) prostrates itself at the altar of ‘precedent’ as a sacrosanct idol, never to be overturned. I guess other prior ruling reversals never happened, then....
OK, now I understand.
You are angry at The Guardian.
The Guardian is probably the most successful Socialist newspaper in the Free World.
Unlike most Conservatives, I think it is ALWAYS important to know what the political opposition is up to.
And now, it’s time to dust off Old Sparky and make the death penalty something to fear once again. We really do need to wake up from ‘woke’ before we go broke in every sense of the word.
IMO, convicted perpetrators’ lawyers and supporters were just using the ‘Federal Court’ set-aside/retrial gambit as some sort of liberal loophole. “Uh....my CIVIL RIGHTS were violated....”
Find a liberal federal court/judge to listen to a “the STATE didn’t provide me with competent counsel” and then sit back let the left wing federal government meddle where they had no right to try the case in the first place.
It appears to me that the issues need to be addressed in a state court before turning to Federal courts. This is the norm in most criminal convictions. Once denied relief in the State courts, they then can turn to the Federal Court.
Or, as The Guardian put it:
"In a 6 to 3 ruling, the newly-dominant rightwing majority..."
It’s perfectly okay for the leftists to talk about and spend every waking moment on its “the US Constitution is a living document” manta and then advocate and protest for leftist interpretation and extrapolation of concepts that just aren’t there in the original words or meaning of the document.
But when it comes time for the USSC to review and reverse prior decisions decades later that just cannot happen - not with abortion. And not with the de rigueur concept “the fed needs to step in because I didn’t like that STATE’S ruling on a STATE case.” No sir.
It’s like they’ve never heard of Plessy, Dred Scott or even Brown v Board.....
Reason number 546 why Roberts is not a liberal.
The Guardian: Now termed Socialist. For decades a Trotskyite rag.
I can hear it now if a liberal-dominated SC were to rule on an issue that made the Dems happy...
“The adults on the Supreme Court have made a fair, equitable and responsible decision when it comes to XYZ...”
That’s about the gist of it. Tough cookies for them.... the 2016 Election had consequences...and they did their worst in 2020. 2024 is when we take it back.
Oh, I think he HAD to rule as he did because the idea of a USSC ruling being untouchably sacrosanct with respect to a future court reversing it is infantile. There are many examples of time the court has reversed itself; at least he saw the logic in that.
But make no mistake, when it came to the ‘down and dirty’ of ObamaCare he ruled that “it is a tax.......and it isn’t.’ Never forget that.
He’s a creature who wants to be able to go out into DC environs and not be doused with blue paint - or red paint, frankly. He likes the socials, parties and MSM treatment that comes with being a so-called conservative who ruled or opined on something the libs like.
Ok, I agree with your characterization above.
“OK, now I understand.
You are angry at The Guardian.”
Sometimes derisively referred to as “The Grauniad” for its history of typos.
“an abrogation of the Court’s own adherence to the principle of stare decisis”
There’s no “adherence to the principle” that bad court decisions made previously should be allowed to stand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.