Today's episode of Unanswerable Sotomayor Dissents involves the Supreme Court allowing Bill Barr's execution of Brandon Bernard (who, unlike Barr, has never killed anyone) to proceed supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Bernard was 18 when he was with a group of young men who murdered two people. The capital sentence was based on the (ludicrously false) premise that he was a full and equal member of a violent gang:
The prosecution knew that Bernard was in fact at the very bottom of a 13-tier hierarchy at trial:
But they did not only did not disclose Bernard's low status in the gang but elicited knowingly false testimony in spite of it, giving us two material constitutional violations:
But the consistently authoritarian 5CA has created a Catch-22 that allows prosecutors to get away with Brady and Napue violations if they cover up their misconduct until the defendant has pursed habeas relief on different grounds:
"Under this rule, prosecutors can run out the clock and escape any responsibility for all but the most extreme violations."
The death sentence was so marginal that 5 of the 9 jurors would not object to (or actively support) a commutation of the death sentence
This case, then, is an object illustration of the freakish arbitrariness of the death penalty. It most definitely does not single out the worst of the worse. Here, a rare federal execution was carried out against someone whose role in a murder was so limited the state had to lie
This case is also another example of the wages of McCleskey v. Kemp. If the victims in this case were Black young men of a similar age rather than white youth ministers there is a 0.0% chance anyone involved would have been executed.
Given different results in the 2014 midterms and more symmetrical strategic retirements, the death penalty might be categorically unconstitutional by now. Instead, this will be the most pro-death-penalty Court in decades.
This is the first federal execution during the lame duck period since the first Cleveland administration
One thing about all these reactionary critics who think they are upholding the Great Standards of Western Culture is that the are invariably hideously bad writers:
"Getting a Ph.D. is a snap these days, which I know from a few random anecdotes" yes really upholding uncompromising standards of intellectual rigor here. (We are in the midst of a hiring process now and all I can say is LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL)
If you do not remember Joseph Epstein from such arguments as "until 2008 presidents of the United States were chosen strictly on merit, but Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would be affirmative action presidents," I envy you nymag.com/intelligencer/…
To reiterate what should not require reiteration, the 6th Amendment means that people have a right to counsel in criminal cases. It does not entail a "right" to file frivolous or abusive claims, let alone sub-frivolous claims intended to delegitimize an election.
TX v. PA is a systematic Rule 11 violation, not a lawsuit. Nothing in it even approaches a legal argument, and the statistical non-evidence is the very definition of "not even wrong." lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/12/texas-…
Dianne Feinstein led the Democrats during immensely important Supreme Court hearings in the midst of severe cognitive decline: lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/12/losing…
DiFi just flat-out undermined every marginal Dem Senate candidate to massage her own ego by insisting to keep doing a job she was not longer capable of doing newyorker.com/news/news-desk…
After completely botching the ACB hearings, Schumer had The Talk with Feinstein...and then *had to have it again because she immediately forgot about it*:
The idea that taking large amounts of money from a corporation to persuade the Supreme Court to make it harder for employees to sue is actually a noble enterprise no different than representing an indigent criminal defendant is so silly that to state the argument is to refute it
...and yet it’s widely believed among elite legal liberals because…well, do I have to come right flat out and tell you everything?
Incidentally, here's a useful example in how to frame an almost entirely party-line vote. This, from the WaPo, is correct: washingtonpost.com/powerpost/hous…
The NYT's framing, conversely, is extremely misleading, especially since you need to read all the way to the 14th graf to discover that the number of Republicans in this "bipartisan" coalition is "5" nytimes.com/2020/12/04/us/…
"Everyone who merits consideration for work in a future Democratic administration, please step forward. No, no, no, just remain right where you are, Mr. Katyal."
The idea that you have to treat clients chosen by big-time Supreme Court appellate lawyers like they're public defenders is some truly intelligence-insulting stuff, and that goes double when you tell public lies about judicial nominees you hope will favor your unsavory clients
"Would you agree that everyone is entitled to a criminal defense attorney irrespective if their ability to pay? Then surely you agree that deep-pocketed corporations who don't want to be held liable for child slavery should be able to get the precise lawyer of their choice."