Joe the Revelator
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-21-11 09:44 PM
Original message |
How can no Justice vote to dissent? |
|
Edited on Wed Sep-21-11 09:45 PM by Joe the Revelator
What is wrong with this Country right now? How can we rely in a system, where, in the face of extreme doubt, not even ONE SC Justice could vote to with hold the idea that you have to be proven guilty beyond a resonable doubt....
|
GreenPartyVoter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-21-11 09:45 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I don't understand it either. They aren't all RW extremists. How can not even one stand up |
Joe the Revelator
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-21-11 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. Its the most unbelievable thing in a year full of unbelievable things |
NaturalHigh
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-21-11 09:46 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Legally, the case for the Supreme Court was pretty cut and dried. |
|
All the points of law have already been reviewed. Regardless of one's opinion about Troy Davis, I'm not sure the justices had a lot of wiggle room here.
|
TheWraith
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-21-11 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
10. Yeah, pretty much. The appeal for a stay is based on legal argument, not subjective merit. |
|
Basically, if you don't have a NEW legal argument, new evidence, etcetera, then it's nearly impossible to get a stay.
|
EFerrari
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-21-11 09:46 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Corrupt up to their eyeballs. n/t |
Parker CA
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-21-11 09:47 PM
Response to Original message |
5. I don't get it either, but Jeremy Scahill was on Ed and saying that it was because of the |
|
Edited on Wed Sep-21-11 09:48 PM by Parker CA
way very literal way they likely interpreted the constitution and that they couldn't really infringe on a state's rights. He was speaking very fast and was clearly strongly emotional, so I didn't catch everything, but I believe that is the gist of the reason he gave.
|
Joe the Revelator
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-21-11 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. All it takes it just one person to write a few paragraphs as a dissenting voter....just out of |
NRaleighLiberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-21-11 09:49 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Our trip down the moral and cultural drain will only accelerate. we are lost as a country. |
Ian David
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-21-11 10:05 PM
Response to Original message |
8. ACLU was saying at least one justice dissented. n/t |
BzaDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-21-11 10:07 PM
Response to Original message |
9. We have NO IDEA whether anywhere between one and four justices voted to dissent. |
|
We just know that it was not noted and they didn't include a separate opinion.
There are plenty of orders with no noted dissent even though it is obvious that all four liberals dissented. In this case, there won't be any further proceedings with the case, so we will never know.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 12:43 PM
Response to Original message |