Showing posts tagged SCOTUS
“
It should be noted at the outset that the dissent does not discuss a single case — not one — in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent’s name would be shouted from the rooftops.

Antonin Scalia, Cameron v. Marsh, 2006. 

He and his current Supreme Court colleagues should consider how painful eating those words is going to feel.

(via dceiver)

(Reblogged from pantslessprogressive)

U.S. Supreme Court rules businesses do NOT have a right of personal privacy

squashed:

Basically, they’re not that much like people. It was an 8-0 opinion.

(Reblogged from pantslessprogressive)
“
While JUSTICE THOMAS would apparently not rule out a death sentence for a $50 theft by a 7-year-old…

Justice Stevens in his opinion on the Court’s recent ruling that life without parole for juveniles (in non-homicide crimes) is unconstitutional.

Another reason we’ll be sad to see Stevens go and continue to be confused how Thomas ever fucking wound up with that much power.

(via hungryghoast)

(Reblogged from hungryghoast)

Supreme Court clueless about pagers, texting and e-mails....

If our Supreme Court justices don’t know the difference between a pager and an email—how can they render important decisions in today’s tech savvy world?

According to this post, at DC Dicta, the Court asked some questions of the lawyers which, well, the justices’ kids and grandkids could have answered while sleepwalking.

According to the story, the first sign of trouble came was about midway through the argument, when Chief Justice John Roberts asked what the difference was “between email and a pager?” (Cue sound of hard slap against forehead.)

At another point, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked what would happen if a text message was sent to an officer at the same time he was sending one to someone else.

“Does it say: ‘Your call is important to us, and we will get back to you?’” Kennedy asked. (Cue sound of louder slap against forehead.)

Justice Antonin Scalia stumbled getting his arms around with the idea of a service provider.

“You mean (the text) doesn’t go right to me?” he asked.

Then he asked whether they can be printed out in hard copy.

“Could Quon print these spicy little conversations and send them to his buddies?” Scalia asked.

Just imagine how confusing social networks (especially Twitter, FourSquare, etc.) might be. And what about reblogging?