Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, May 24, 2022

In a 6 to 3 ruling, the newly-dominant rightwing majority of the nation's highest court barred federal courts from hearing new evidence that was not previously presented in a state court as a result of the defendant's ineffective legal representation.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Sotomayor argued that under the court's own precedent, prisoners cannot be held accountable " and effectively punished " for "their attorneys' failures to present claims in state court".

She concluded that as a result of the majority decision from the nine-member supreme court bench, the Sixth Amendment to the US constitution's guarantee that criminal defendants have the right to effective legal counsel at trial "is now an empty one".

I'll wait for the impassioned arguments from our resident Constitutional "c-c-conservatives" against this ruling.

#1 | Posted by jpw at 2022-05-23 06:33 PM | Reply

"Thomas's opinion also overturns previous supreme court rulings"

Oh, I get it.

This is what Republicans mean when they say the Supreme Court is legislating from the bench.

The essence of modern conservatism is a wholesale rejection of conservative principles.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-23 08:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Leave it to Uncle Thomas to make sure that the thousands of black men railroaded throughout America by our racist justice system never get a fair hearing. It is sick. Truly sick.

#3 | Posted by moder8 at 2022-05-24 12:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The defendant made a big mistake in not being born to a rich, white man...

#4 | Posted by catdog at 2022-05-24 01:02 PM | Reply

The Republican Court, including Thomas, will not pass up a chance to keep more Black people in jail.

#5 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2022-05-24 02:10 PM | Reply

The party that praises our systems of checks and balances... just eliminated some checks and balances.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-24 02:17 PM | Reply

www.msn.com

Then you've got this.

Apparently, this is a victory for state's rights, federalism and individual rights all in one!

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2022-05-24 02:30 PM | Reply

The result of this case, that an almost certainly innocent man will be put to death due to failures by his government lawyer, flies in the face of both precedent and justice. Republicans are disgusting and pro death.

#8 | Posted by JOE at 2022-05-24 02:42 PM | Reply

I wish someone could explain to me how killing an innocent man is justice.

that sort of situation arises on a regular basis. Everyone knows the person is innocent, yet the appeals courts and SC cannot overturn a conviction, because of... reasons.

Never understood that at all.

#9 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-24 02:53 PM | Reply

They say Justice. But what they mean is Order. The kind of order that gets imposed by an iron fist.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-24 03:19 PM | Reply

Obviously none of you know ANYTHING about this case, nor did you read the 47 page opinion. First of all, the decision relates to these specific circumstances. It does not change the law. That is the legislatures job. Secondly, this is not an innocent man by any stretch of the imagination. He stabbed his girlfriend and her 15 month old baby daughter to death. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether his attorneys did a good enough job introducing evidence that he was developmentally disabled. THAT is what this case is about.

#11 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-05-24 06:05 PM | Reply

Correction, the daughter was 15 years old, not 15 months old. He also confessed to raping the 15 year old, before he killed her and on at least 4 previous occasions.

#12 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-05-24 06:08 PM | Reply

He stabbed the mother with scissors and the daughter with a box cutter. It took a while. Still think of him as "innocent"?

"The Court found that the victims experienced great pain and suffering over a prolonged period of time. Neighbors heard "banging, screaming, cries for help, and running noises" for twenty to thirty minutes. Blood and murder weapons were scattered throughout the apartment. The victims were conscious during repeated stabbings. Each victim was stabbed fifteen to twenty times. Each victim was aware of the other victim's suffering. Victim, Mrs. G., had defensive wounds from the struggle. Under these facts, the Court found that, "especially cruel," applied to both murder counts."

#13 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-05-24 06:12 PM | Reply

Still more, he raped the 15 year old AFTER he stabbed her, but before she died, while she was bleeding to death
....these facts were not in dispute.

#14 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-05-24 06:30 PM | Reply

"First of all, the decision relates to these specific circumstances. It does not change the law."

LOL.

You're nuts.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-24 06:37 PM | Reply

"Still think of him as "innocent"?

I've never once thought about whether he's innocent or guilty. I didn't even know he was a "he."

The specifics of the alleged crime are irrelevant. I'm sure we can agree on that!

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-24 06:38 PM | Reply

Still think of him as "innocent"?

Has anybody said he's innocent?

Gutting the right to legal council (because that's basically what this is if you have no recourse to poor council) by calling it a state's issue isn't saying he's innocent.

And even in this country, guilty parties are still afforded rights. At least they used to be...

#17 | Posted by jpw at 2022-05-24 08:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Yes, JPW, several posters said he was innocent. I agree with you, even the guilty have a right to effective counsel. Martinez argument that he did not was pretty weak. I also agree that it is a state issue. That is the real dispute between the Conservative and Liberal members of the court. The Conservatives believe a State Court verdict should be binding and the Federal Courts should ony hear a case when there are extraordinary circumstances such as new evidence that could prove innocence or indications of a gross miscarriage of justice. This case did not rise to that threshold. The Liberal side of the Court believes the Federal courts should intervene whenever possible, and oversee/override the State courts. That is judicial overreach and not how our Republic was designed to operate. The Constitution doesn't give you a right to a Federal appeal for a state crime.

#18 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-05-24 10:56 PM | Reply

First of all, the decision relates to these specific circumstances. It does not change the law. That is the legislatures job.

Thanks for outing yourself as a complete ------ right off the bat; saved me a lot of time.

#19 | Posted by JOE at 2022-05-24 11:23 PM | Reply

Case law is just that, case law. It is fully binding on the case at hand. It Is used in court as precedent for cases with similar facts, and that precedent is weighed in each case for relevance and applicability for each subsequent CASE.. Your an idiot Joe. You don't know anything about case law, but neither do most Americans.

#20 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-05-25 07:50 AM | Reply

I guarantee i know more about it than a pig like you. Your fundamental misunderstanding of it proves it.

#21 | Posted by JOE at 2022-05-25 06:47 PM | Reply

You know so,little your resort to childish playground insults rather than factual arguments, says a lot about you.

#22 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-05-25 08:17 PM | Reply

Joe's a lawyer.

Pretty sure he has a good grasp on what's being discussed.

#23 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-25 08:31 PM | Reply

Obviously none of you know ANYTHING about this case, nor did you read the 47 page opinion. First of all, the decision relates to these specific circumstances. It does not change the law. That is the legislatures job. Secondly, this is not an innocent man by any stretch of the imagination. He stabbed his girlfriend and her 15 month old baby daughter to death. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether his attorneys did a good enough job introducing evidence that he was developmentally disabled. THAT is what this case is about.

#11 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

Literally none of this is accurate.

"First of all, the decision relates to these specific circumstances."

No. The court held that new evidence that was not in the state court's records, based on ineffective assistance of post-conviction council, could not be used in an appeal to a federal court. It applies to ALL cases where ineffective assistance of post-conviction council is raised.

"It does not change the law."

No. It literally just changed the law. Previously courts relied on Martinez v. Ryan that allowed evidentiary hearings in these settings. That common law is not gone.

"Secondly, this is not an innocent man by any stretch of the imagination. He stabbed his girlfriend and her 15 month old baby daughter to death."

No. It's TWO men. Ramirez is being held for stabbing. But Barry Jones, the other case, has literally presented evidence that its physically impossible for him to have committed the crime. It was missed by his previous attorneys who dropped the ball. And the Supreme Court has said its somehow Jones' fault his lawyer didn't do the job. Apparently Jones should be qualified to defend himself even though lawyers go to three years of law school and have to pass the bar.

"What is in dispute is whether his attorneys did a good enough job introducing evidence that he was developmentally disabled. THAT is what this case is about."

No. They are saying they completely missed evidence during sentencing of intellectual disability and a history of abuse and neglect that would have warranted less than the death penalty. It's not that they didn't do a good enough job. It's that they didn't do it AT ALL.

#24 | Posted by Sycophant at 2022-05-25 08:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Conservatives believe a State Court verdict should be binding and the Federal Courts should ony hear a case when there are extraordinary circumstances such as new evidence that could prove innocence or indications of a gross miscarriage of justice. This case did not rise to that threshold.

#18 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

No.

You literally don't have a ------- clue.

The evidence for Jones literally proves he couldn't have committed the crime.

The Conservative Supreme Court Justices said even if you have new evidence that PROVES you are innocent, you CANNOT present it if your state appointed trial attorney and state appointed post conviction attorney missed it because they sucked.

It doesn't matter if you are innocent. If your attorneys dropped the ball, you will be executed even if you now have proof you are innocent.

#25 | Posted by Sycophant at 2022-05-25 08:45 PM | Reply

"It doesn't matter if you are innocent. If your attorneys dropped the ball, you will be executed even if you now have proof you are innocent."

^
This is what the Party of Law and Order has always stood for.
"We are a Nation of Laws" is 100% compatible with your quote.
Ideologically and procedurally in the legal sense adjacent is "Party of Personal Responsibility."

They're on a tear now, after planning for and working towards this for 45 years at least.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-25 09:09 PM | Reply

It does not change the law.

That's some refreshing naivety there. lol

#27 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2022-05-25 09:32 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort