Justice Scalia: Ensuring Innocent People Get Out Of Prison Is A ‘Faustian Bargain’

A man who may be locked up for a murder he did not commit should not be allowed to challenge his conviction, according to Justice Antonin Scalia and his three most conservative colleagues. And three members of the Supreme Court seem to believe that most people jailed due to unconstitutional convictions should have no recourse to the federal courts. At least, that’s what emerges from a four justice dissenting opinion written by Scalia in a case dealing with the rights of state prisoners who may be “actually innocent” of the crime they were convicted of committing.

McQuiggin v. Perkins is a fairly unusual case. After being sentenced to life in prison for murder, Floyd Perkins spent years gathering three affidavits from witnesses corroborating his claim that another man committed the crime. Yet he sat on this new evidence for nearly six years before presenting it to a federal court. Justice Scalia’s dissent claims that a one year statute of limitations prevents Perkins from presenting six year-old evidence that he may be innocent. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s majority opinion holds that “actual innocence” may overcome this one year time limit, although she also requires prisoners in Perkins’ shoes to overcome a very high bar before their claims of innocence may succeed in federal court.

Read on....

Justice Scalia’s Speech to Closed-Door Tea Party Caucus Session Is Inappropriate Political Activity

Appearance could provide grounds for recusal in upcoming cases; disqualification statute needs an upgrade

WASHINGTON - January 24 - Common Cause today criticized Justice Antonin Scalia's decision to address a closed-door session of the House Tea Party caucus as political activity that undermines public confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The American people expect impartial justice from the Supreme Court," said Bob Edgar, President and CEO of Common Cause, a non-partisan watchdog group. "The last thing we need in these divisive times is Supreme Court justices appearing to be allied with a political faction."

"Justice Scalia's acceptance of Rep. Bachmann's invitation shows poor judgment and could lay the ground for his recusal in future cases, such as court challenges to President Obama's health care reform law," Edgar said.

The Judicial Code of Conduct bars federal judges from engaging in political activity, including "mak[ing] speeches for a political organization" or attend[ing]...a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization." See Canon 5, Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges.

Read on...

Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination

WASHINGTON -- The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect against discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

In a newly published interview in the legal magazine California Lawyer, Scalia said that while the Constitution does not disallow the passage of legislation outlawing such discrimination, it doesn't itself outlaw that behavior:

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

Read on...