[Posted by The Angry Clam]
Do you remember that big deal about the 1992 execution of the alleged rapist/murder in Virginia who swore he was innocent and framed for the crime? Virginia’s Governor Warner had made headlines by ordering new DNA testing a few weeks ago. It was the one where the anti-capital punishment people were salivating, hoping that, finally, they’d have DNA evidence to prove that an innocent man was put to death. After all, like Tookie Williams, he protested his innocence up until the day that justice was served.
Oops, he was guilty as hell.
As he said in his final statement before he received justice, “An innocent man is going to be murdered tonight. When my innocence is proven, I hope America will realize the injustice of the death penalty as all other civilized countries have.”
Who would have thought that a man on death row would lie about his innocence? My world is shattered.
– The Angry Clam
[Posted by The Angry Clam]
…before they expound upon the law. There’s a reason that Yale used to (and perhaps still does) offer a master’s degree in jurisprudence for non-attorneys- the degree is specifically targeted to journalists who write about the law, because, let’s face it, they don’t really have much of a clue.
This unsigned editorial is a case in point. In their last, vain attempt to destroy the Alito nomination, the editors betray a fundamental misunderstand of many relatively basic points of law, not to mention their typically weak grasp of facts.
An online poll at the L.A. Times op-ed page asks:
Should Supreme Court Justice nominee Samuel Alito’s 1985 memo on abortion be a determining factor in the decision to confirm him to the Court?
I assume by “memo” they mean his job application. Your choices are:
Yes, the fact that he believes Roe v. Wade is not protected under the constitution hinders his ability to judge reasonably.
No, he stated that he did it for a job interview and he is obviously well qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.
I don’t know, we should wait to hear his reasoning during the confirmation hearings.
So it’s described as a “fact” that Alito believes Roe is “not protected under the constitution” (whatever that means). Presumably the editors mean that Alito currently believes the case should not be overruled, which is far from an established fact, given the doctrine of stare decisis and the age of his statement.
Meanwhile, to vote “no,” you have to agree that it was a meaningless and insincere statement made for a job application.
Sure, online polls like this are meaningless anyway, so it’s a minor point. I mention it because it’s a small insight into the way the editors think.