4 ms·

If I may, I respectfully disagree in this particular case. If you deny, capriciously, justice to wrongfully convicted humans, it is not just something you writ

by rdancer 11y ago

If I may, I respectfully disagree in this particular case. If you deny, capriciously, justice to wrongfully convicted humans, it is not just something you write about. It is that you personally are this person who denies these people justice for no particular reason except that you can. You are a terrible person. The phrase is appropriate, and that it is often used flippantly in other less fitting contexts doesn't matter. You do a terrific job moderating HN, and I respect your decisions. Godspeed!

emmelaich 11y ago
Capriciously? Can you find a ".. basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice .."
- rdancer 11y ago
  Since at other times he is a veritable balloon animal artist able to make the constitution support whatever conclusion he wants, I do find him refusing to do it in cases when he could remedy manifest injustice with a stroke of a pen capricious. Other than that, what CamperBob2 says.
  - rdancer 11y ago
    > I do find him refusing to do it in cases when he could remedy manifest injustice with a stroke of a pen capricious. The certiorari was granted, and I'm a terrible person for writing it was refused; see further up-thread.
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  As I stated, the Eighth Amendment alone would have sufficed. Basically, Scalia was always steadfastly loyal to the Constitution's original intent, except when it conflicted with his religion, his political ideology, or his personal opinion. It's unfortunate to see all these hagiographies being written about him.
  - emmelaich 11y ago
    The long term of imprisonment of innocent people in the USA is disturbing and perhaps if I was on the Supreme Court I would ave allowed it. But. It sounds like the 8th amendment applies to events after conviction, even if you're not guilty. So the letter of the law has been applied. Put it this way; if the law is never wrong because you can rely on the good people on the Supreme Court to fix things, then the law will never be changed. (btw, I didn't downvote you at any time)
    - CamperBob2 11y ago
      But. It sounds like the 8th amendment applies to events after conviction, even if you're not guilty. So the letter of the law has been applied. I'm afraid I don't follow you. If you're still being punished after evidence comes to light that you aren't guilty, then you're being "cruelly and unusually punished" by any sane person's definition. The Eighth is applicable, and should have been cited by Scalia to draw the opposite conclusion that he came to.
rdancer 11y ago
> If you deny, capriciously, justice to wrongfully convicted humans, it is not just something you write about. The quote is from a concurrence on a certiorari Herrera v. Collins[1], and Justice Scalia was indeed "just writing" about it. The certiorari was granted, so he didn't "deny justice". Dang is right, I got it wrong, and my conclusions are hogwash—for which I apologize. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328.ZC1.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328.ZC1.html

by rdancer 11y ago

emmelaich 11y ago

Capriciously? Can you find a ".. basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice .."

rdancer 11y ago
Since at other times he is a veritable balloon animal artist able to make the constitution support whatever conclusion he wants, I do find him refusing to do it in cases when he could remedy manifest injustice with a stroke of a pen capricious. Other than that, what CamperBob2 says.
- rdancer 11y ago
  > I do find him refusing to do it in cases when he could remedy manifest injustice with a stroke of a pen capricious. The certiorari was granted, and I'm a terrible person for writing it was refused; see further up-thread.
CamperBob2 11y ago
As I stated, the Eighth Amendment alone would have sufficed. Basically, Scalia was always steadfastly loyal to the Constitution's original intent, except when it conflicted with his religion, his political ideology, or his personal opinion. It's unfortunate to see all these hagiographies being written about him.
- emmelaich 11y ago
  The long term of imprisonment of innocent people in the USA is disturbing and perhaps if I was on the Supreme Court I would ave allowed it. But. It sounds like the 8th amendment applies to events after conviction, even if you're not guilty. So the letter of the law has been applied. Put it this way; if the law is never wrong because you can rely on the good people on the Supreme Court to fix things, then the law will never be changed. (btw, I didn't downvote you at any time)
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    But. It sounds like the 8th amendment applies to events after conviction, even if you're not guilty. So the letter of the law has been applied. I'm afraid I don't follow you. If you're still being punished after evidence comes to light that you aren't guilty, then you're being "cruelly and unusually punished" by any sane person's definition. The Eighth is applicable, and should have been cited by Scalia to draw the opposite conclusion that he came to.

rdancer 11y ago

> If you deny, capriciously, justice to wrongfully convicted humans, it is not just something you write about. The quote is from a concurrence on a certiorari Herrera v. Collins[1], and Justice Scalia was indeed "just writing" about it. The certiorari was granted, so he didn't "deny justice". Dang is right, I got it wrong, and my conclusions are hogwash—for which I apologize. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328.ZC1.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328.ZC1.html