US Supreme Court Justice Scalia, 79, found dead, 13 Feb 2016

[Snick1946]

Did Scalia take the controversial stance that innocence shouldn't prevent the death penalty being carried out so long as it was reached in a judicially legal manner?

http://www.snopes.com/scalia-death-penalty-quote/

Not trying to politicize the discussion, I just find this mind boggling if so.

 

[al66pine]

While many LE report forms I've seen are titled "Incident Report," Presidio County, TX sheriff office's report dated Feb 13 is headed "Offense Report."

On a lighter note in midst of loss, no disrespect to anyone, federal or local, judicial or LE.

More from report: "Offense: Natural Death" and "Place of Offense: Cibolo Creek Ranch."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps...justice-antonin-scalias-death/1968/?tid=a_inl Feb 23.
Link to above is in
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ju...ty-of-elite-hunters/ar-BBpXBgx?ocid=spartanhp Feb 25.


RIP Justice Scalia.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Did Scalia take the controversial stance that innocence shouldn't prevent the death penalty being carried out so long as it was reached in a judicially legal manner?

http://www.snopes.com/scalia-death-penalty-quote/

Not trying to politicize the discussion, I just find this mind boggling if so.

From your link -

Justice Scalia's words regarding that decision are often quoted out of context, leaving readers with the mistaken impression that he believed it was perfectly acceptable for our legal system to execute people whom we knew to be innocent. In the fuller context, what he was actually expressing was that once a person had been fairly convicted and sentenced in court, and had exhausted all his possible avenues of appeal, a last-minute claim of innocence was not by itself sufficient grounds for further delaying the carrying out of the sentence.

Scalia concurred with the court's 6-3 Herrera v. Collins decision that a claim of innocence should not serve as the sole grounds for habeas corpus relief, stating in his written opinion that sufficient legal relief already existed for people presenting new evidence of innocence (not that factual innocence was irrelevant) and that ruling otherwise would impose an unmanageable burden on lower courts to review newly discovered evidence:

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Apologies if this has been posted previously, I scanned the thread and didn't see it. I am not into a lot of conspiracy issues but found it interesting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...77af38-db20-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html

Scalia was apparently attending a secret society function. I still do not think there was anything sinister going on or that he was killed but maybe his family didn't want any of this coming out- it would spark controversy.

The secret society you refer to -

The International Order of St. Hubertus is a worldwide organization of hunters who are also wildlife conservationists and are respectful of traditional hunting ethics and practices. Founded in 1695, the motto of the Order is “Deum Diligite Animalia Diligentes” or “Honoring God by Honoring His Creatures.”

http://www.iosh-usa.com

 

[TooCurious]

I'm pretty sure I put "IMO" in front of it to indicate it was my opinion. I don't follow any mainstream media so I wouldn't know what they're reporting about him.

You could, however, point me to any "illegal executive order" you've witnessed by the POTUS.

<modsnip>

The supreme Court has struck down 12 executive orders (unanimously) from the Obama administration as illegal. There are more to come for sure but it takes time to run through the courts. So it is not my opinion, it is fact. That is just the unanimous decisions. Link provided. https://www.myheritage.org/news/una...-administrations-unconstitutional-power-grab/

 

[bessie]

Since some of you are unable to rise above name calling, and to conduct yourselves with proper decorum, there will be no debate. Once again, another thread is closed.