‘Auguean’ and ‘Faustian’ In One Opinion?

It seems Nino Scalia has outdone himself on this one.  You’ll have to read the dissent all the way to the end to see what I mean.

Thankfully it was not the majority opinion.  By a slender 5-4 margin, the federal courthouse doors remain open to state prisoners who properly take the time to develop their federal habeas corpus claims – which will almost certainly require more time than the draconian 1 year statute of limitations the AEDPA imposed – have a legitimate and exhausted federal law based objection to their conviction or prosecution, and who have made a strong showing that they are ‘actually innocent’ of the crime(s) for which they are imprisoned.

Perhaps there is hope yet.  Apparently not every Justice on the SCOTUS thinks that wrongly convicted innocent people should be relegated to seeking a pardon, as if they had done something wrong and not the state that wrongfully convicted them:

This is not to say, however, that petitioner is left without  a forum to raise his actual innocence claim.  For under  Texas law, petitioner may file a request for executive  clemency.  See Tex. Const., Art. IV., §11; Tex. Code Crim.  Proc. Ann., Art. 48.01 (Vernon 1979).  Clemency    ^[n.12]   is  deeply rooted in our Anglo American tradition of law, and  is the historic remedy for preventing miscarriages of  justice where judicial process has been exhausted.   ^[n.13]

Ugh.  Sure, bring your clemency petition to Rick Perry.

You wonder if in writing that Justice Rehnquist was meaning to be funny, given the infinitesimal odds of receiving mercy from a Governor of Texas.  But it’s almost more banal than that.  It’s about whether the high and mighty must continually be bothered with the insignificant problems of the rabble, such as that they have been wrongfully imprisoned or will be wrongfully executed.  Justice Scalia’s point is exactly the same:  to be forced to spend time and effort to properly adjudicate the guilt or innocence of another human being who has perhaps been wrongfully convicted of a crime and imprisoned is humiliating, and beneath the efforts of federal judges.  That’s what he means when he refers to the Augean stables.

Though I’m sure he felt that the hoi polloi would not be smart or learned enough to figure out what he was really saying.

Nino certainly is slipping in his dotage, revealing far too much of the elitism that he formerly kept under wraps, or at least tamed.

Seen In An Article

about a rather ill-fated robbery attempt upon Pittsburgh Steelers offensive tackle Mike Adams – who is 6′-7″ and 320+ pounds – in the comments section:

Do yourself a favor…conceal carry and end the lives of those who think what
you have worked so hard for should be theirs…

How to begin?

I’m in favor of concealed carry, I guess.  I don’t see laws against carrying guns doing much good.  The people you’re primarily targeting with such a law don’t care about the law.  So it’s all a bit silly.

I’m in favor of the right to property, and I agree how important it is to respect others’ property, and that the forcible taking of someone else’s property – robbery – is properly a felony.  I also admire hard work and effort as much as the next guy.  Probably more.  I am constrained to add, however, that someone might have property and not “worked hard” for it.  Maybe they just inherited it and didn’t work for it at all.  It’s still their property.  Property rights are not subject to the whims of the “worked so hard for it” police.

I agree that everyone is entitled to protect themselves and their property, up to and including using deadly force in appropriate circumstances, appropriate circumstances being what is called, you know, a significant qualification.

I emphatically disagree that the penalty for robbery should be death.  That is ludicrously unjust and uncivilized.  Someone rightfully defending themselves or their property from robbery might kill in the course of so doing, but that certainly shouldn’t be the intent, and if it happens anyway it is hardly a cause for celebration and high-fiving.  Ugh.

Thus while I don’t know that there’s anything to be done, law-wise, about it, I think the commenter, based on that comment alone, is unbalanced and doesn’t have the judgment or restraint to be trusted with a gun.

This particular robbery became national news because the would-be victim was a monstrous NFL lineman, an amusingly unlucky selection by the robbers involved.  That’s all.  It’s a stretch to twist it into an occasion for climbing up on one’s soap-box to spout off about the virtues of “concealed carry”, and those who do, especially in the crude manner the commenter did, are doing that cause no favors.

To me that was a mildly amusing and overall happy ending story:  the NFL player apparently had a minor injury and will continue his life and career with hardly a blip as a result; the robbers left a cell phone at the scene and will probably be caught; and nobody ended up dead on the pavement, including the robbers.  I can’t imagine that anyone would think this would be a happier story if someone had wound up dead on the pavement, but evidently there are some people who do.

That is the sad part of this story.