In Plato’s Republic, Socrates tried to define justice. He had the earliest version of a liberal, Thrasymachus, delivering silly opinions that Socrates refuted.
Now we are subject to the same questions, and we are failing.
Majority: Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor
Dissent: Scalia, Ginsburg
Wow...Ruth Ginsburg and Scalia agreeing in a dissent?
There’s something I hadn’t expected to see anytime soon.
6-2, not exactly a nail biter.
I don’t see this as Scalia slinging “barbs” at Sotomayor. He was comdemning the oppinion and the headline would have been just as accurate if the name Roberts or Thomas had been used instead of Sotomayor.
Gad, I agree with Sonya.
I’m not sure if I would agree with the decision or not, haven’t read it yet.
But in truth, haven’t death-bed type statements always been given a different status as evidence? I mean a death-bed statement is not necessarily considered hear-say, so it is sometimes admissible.
Just sayin.
“obfuscator of last resort”
What a mind.
“Sotomayor said Scalia’s analysis was simplistic”
That’s like Wile E. Coyote telling Albert Einstein that his physics are simplistic.
I hate a world in which a dimwit like Sotomayor gets away with that.
When a leftard says something is “simplistic,” it really means, “I can’t rebut that argument on the merits, but I can intimidate you into thinking that the reason my arguments look bogus to you is that you are not smart enough to understand them.”
Traditionally, an attack victim who believes he is dying is assumed to want to speak the truth when naming his assailant, because he expects to soon face God. This sounds like a straightforward application of that tradition, and why Scalia would get bent out of shape over this sort of exception to the hearsay rule sounds like a minor mystery. Was the victim an atheist?
This case will have little, if any impact on future cases.
I agree that there should be more weight given to the confrontation clause, but like everything in the law, the absence of common sense is the problem here. It is the continued pushing of the envelope to create ridged structure to human endeavors that is the problem, and more weight should be given to judicial and jury responses of ‘are you kidding me?’ to these ludicrous theories.
Common sense says you shouldn't benefit from a criminal act in your defense. That a victim's statement shouldn't be thrown out simply because they've been murdered.
Scalia and Ginsburg were the two in dissent. WTH? Dogs and cats laying down together time to call Ghostbusters.
Yikes.. A dying declaration should be inadmissable, according to Scalia??
Let the court (and the jury) hear it. The prosecution can present it and the defense can impugn it.
I have never been a fan of “loophole” defense strategies which aim to get this or that “thrown out” on bullsh!+ technicalities. I have always felt that punishing victims for the transgressions of cops was a slimy way to operate a “justice” system. Punish the cop if he screws up. Spank him hard. Fire him, jail him, whatever.. Meanwhile, let all the evidence in, argue it, and let the jury decide. Show a little respect for the victim and his family.
I think Scalia is way off base here.
Hearing “Justice” Sotomeyer makes by stomach scrunch in the same way “President” Obama does. Arrrrrrrrrrrgh!
It’s like using a hammer for a scalpel, or a rock for a hammer.