Antonin Scalia is guilty of initiating the theft of the 2000 election from Al Gore through a stay he issued forcing the stop of the State Court ordered recount in Florida, and his subsequent coordination a 5-4 majority to annoint George W. Bush as President.
But as of just yesterday, August 17th, he also added state sanctioned murder to his list of crimes.
Scalia was one of just two written dissenters (along with his puppet, Clarence Thomas), who ferociously challenged the notion that the Supreme Court should ensure that an innocent man not be put to death. That's right, Scalia -- in common sense terms and not the legal mumble jumble that he dazzles the likes of Harry Reid with (BuzzFlash once wrote an editorial about how Harry Reid thought Scalia so brilliant he might consider voting for him for Chief Justice at the time -- such is the sad mindset of our Democratic Majority Leader) -- asserts that there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents an innocent person from being executed.
No, we are not making this up. Scalia -- although he uses arcane justifications of state vs. federal jurisdiction and that tidy trials shouldn't be challenged -- argues that the governmental legal system is not prohibited by the federal Constitution from killing the wrong person, in the name of -- excuse me while I throw up a little in my mouth -- "justice."
BuzzFlash will let Scalia speak for himself in his dissent of the appeal for lower court review of the highly questionable conviction of high profile death row inmate Troy Anthony Davis. Says Scalia in his dissent (which also bears the name of Clarence Thomas):
The Georgia Supreme Court rejected petitioner's "actual-innocence" claim on the merits, denying his extraor-dinary motion for a new trial. Davis can obtain relief only if that determination was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, "clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." It most assuredly was not. This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is "actually" innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged "actual innocence" is constitutionally cognizable.
People like Harry Reid are just so damn impressed by phrases like "constitutionally cognizable" -- no wonder the Democrats almost always pull defeat out of the jaws of victory in the Senate.
But back to Mr. Scalia. A legal website noted:
The Supreme Court, over two Justices' dissents, on Monday ordered a federal judge in Georgia to consider and rule on the claim of innocence in the murder case against Troy Anthony Davis (In re Davis, 08-1443) The Court told the District Court to "receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes [Davis'] innocence."
In short, if attorney for Troy Anthony Davis can establish his innocence, he should be freed not put to death. Makes sense, right? Not for Mr. Scalia (or Mr. Thomas).
They have a lot of posh parties and social gatherings in D.C., and the powerful ruling class exchange bon mots and try to dazzle their fellow D.C. elites with their brainpower. Scalia is known to impress people with his ability to bring a legal argument to such a high clould level of wordy claptrap that people don't know what he is talking about and mistake his gift of hubris and pugnacious verbal bravado for genius.
But, every person must be responsible for his or her actions -- that is what the law is all about, isn't it? -- and when it comes down to Scalia as a man, he's just an accessory to murder wearing a black robe.
Tried by a D.C. jury, the guy would do less harm to the nation and innocent Americans if he were put behind bars himself.