re: Folktruther

Thanks for the book suggestion.

You might be interested, Beerdoctor, in A PEOPLE’S HISTORY OF THE WORLD, which Zinn recommends, by Chris Harman.  A little superfical but, hell, it’s amazing that it can be done at all.

re: Folktruther

The myths of American history, as opposed to the actual history, have created the false narrative that so many base their political decisions upon. Of course, The People’s History of United States by Howard Zinn, is a good jumping off point to lifting the illusionary clouds that have portrayed cowardly acts of senseless violence as necessary, or worse, held up to be heroic.

asolutely, Beerdoctor.  That is why the cliche, ‘the US is a govenment of laws not men’ is ominous.  Slavery was legal in the US as well as other mass coercion.

Nit that the bromide is true of course.  In the US, under our descent into barbarism, if the powerful do it, that means its legal.

re: Folktruther

I have little doubt that AS is held in high regard in some judicial circles, but cleverness does not always denote wisdom. Despite advocating for the law to be written in stone, AS and the gang found it convenient to circumnavigate that blessed stone, when it came to the 2000 election of George Bush. Scalia as I recall, later said that everybody “should just get over it”.
American history is full of clever arguments. From the Dred Scott decision to Plessy v. Ferguson. But, as the Mahatma once said: “there are unjust laws as there are unjust men.”

Although it is “constitutional” (legal) to start an unjust war, it is morally and ethically wrong to do so.  When our Constitution contradicts truth, morals, and ethics and permits by omission or commission the death of innocent persons, I respectfully submit that “constitutionality” is a useless criterion.
  There are those who are so tied up in their striving for the original precepts of our forefathers that they end up ignoring the real purpose for any constitution - the very lives of those governed by it.  It’s the legal equivalent of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. 
  At least our forefathers understood this fact and permitted “amendments” and other remedies.

BeerDoctor, I always assumed that Scalia was an idiot but my wife, a supervising appelate attorney, says he is very talented legally.  Thinks up innovative arguments.

It makes one wonder, does it not, about the uses that talent is put to in a homicidal society.  If the constitution implies that it is legal to execute an innocent man, in what sense is this an Enlightenment document? 

Scalia is saying here that the law need not, indeed should not, be based on elementary justice.  Arguing publically and legally, as the highest legal judge.  With no doubt the approval of a fraction of the legal community.

Pardon me if I wax political here. But notice that the two appointees from Bush, Sr. and Ronald Reagan, both GOP presidents, said in essence, that it makes no damned matter that a man is innocent, even if proven after the state murdered them, to be innocent.

I would guess that the framers of our Constitution, and style of governance, never, ever thought that justice in it’s real sense would ever fall along political lines. Scalia and “Long Dong Silver” are the ones who voted that the Florida Supreme Court hand recounting of disputed ballots that were quickly moving in Al Gore’s direction and would have put him in the White House instead of the horror we all just got through with.

It seems that, at long last the more moderate voices are beginning to get their “voices” back. This is a most important case, and if it shows Troy to be innocent, will go a long way toward raising the standard for when a human being can be put to death.
The kind of slip-shod, politicized “justice” that this country is all too familiar with, may have just suffered a “death-blow.”

Dick Cavett once said on his teevee program, `If the cause of capital punishment is simply deterrence, then it doesn’t matter who the state kills.’ He was being facetious. And now an Extreme Court Injustice says it’s Constitutional law.

I saw your show on August, 19, 2009.  It was beyond description as far a Sclia and Thomas are concerned. 
Here we have a two Supreme Court Justices saying that since the Consitution does not say anything about putting innocent people to death who were wrongly convicted of a capital crime, then they say it is “incognizant.”  What are we?
Well, Scalia’s father is a founder of the American Fascist Party in New York City in 1934.  A professor of Classics as Huntington College he rivals the Pseudo-Scholar Davis now of Stanford in his misunderstnading of history.
On 60 Minutes he proclaimed that the law echos his interpretaion because he said so.

We should look into the suspicion that these people are simply members of Death Cult.

It is constitutional to execute anyone who has been tried and convicted of a capital crime.  Whether or not they are guilty should not matter at all.  The fact that they have been found guilty by a jury of their peers is sufficient for the law.

The constitutionality of the Death Penalty is a different matter.  The cruel and unusual punishment exclusion should render the Death Penalty unconstitutional in itself.

Instead we worry ourselves about the most painless method of inflicting death.

Scalia and that wart on his ass, Thomas, seem to believe that the Constitution is immune from logic. To them, the Constitution is some sort of immutable stone face.  I cannot believe that to gain some sort of justice, we would need to add an amendment to the Constitution that forbade the execution of innocent people. That seems ludicrous, but to Scalia, it must be necessary.

But of course, we must remember that this is taking place in Georgia, that most educated and enlightened of states.  You know, the one where black men get a fair deal from Sheriff Justice and his huntin dogs.

Reading Antonin Scalia’s judicial comments reminds me of what Gore Vidal said about being familiar with thugs like Scalia, walking around in places like Naples Italy.

two Supreme Court Justices hold that it is Constitutional to execute a prisoner that a later judicial hearing finds to be not guilty.  It would be difficult to find more salient evidence that the US is sinking into barbarism.