Poll of the Day > Supreme Court Rolling Along With Their Trash Rulings

(+) Yeah! (+)

In Shinn v. Ramirez and Jones, two men on Arizonas death row raised claims in habeas corpus proceedings that their trial attorneys were constitutionally ineffective one for failing to investigate evidence suggesting his client could not have committed the crime, and the other for failing to investigate her clients intellectual disability, which could have spared him the death penalty. Although the Supreme Courts 2012 decision in Martinez v. Ryan permitted defendants to raise such claims for the first time in federal court, on Monday the court ruled 6-3 that they cannot develop evidence to support those claims.

Before delving into the opinions, a little background: Defendants convicted in state court must first raise any constitutional infirmity with their conviction in state court. Failure to do so procedurally defaults the claim, and a federal court cannot review it. In Martinez, however, the court recognized an equitable exception to this strict procedural default rule: If a state allows a prisoner to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for the first time in post-conviction proceedings (i.e., after the direct appeal concluded), a lawyers ineffectiveness at that stage of the case can constitute cause to excuse the procedural default. At the same time, however, Section 2254(e)(2) of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act forbids, with limited exceptions, the federal court from holding an evidentiary hearing if the defendant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings. The question in Shinn was how to square Martinezs allowance for prisoners to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel with AEDPAs apparent prohibition on developing evidence to support that claim.
In my oral argument recap, I discussed how several of the conservative justices seemed genuinely to struggle with that question. Even Justice Clarence Thomas led off the questioning by noting that Arizonas position that the statute governs would render Martinez pretty worthless.

You can read the logic of the ruling and the dissent in the link:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/conservative-majority-hollows-out-precedent-on-ineffective-counsel-claims-in-federal-court/

You guys better hope you never get a shitty lawyer. SC is pissing our rights away.

Wish SCOTUS would get off their fat asses and rule the death penalty unconstitutional, but they can't get their fat asses out of their seats and, even if they could, they'd likely break the chairs because they have some fat asses.

Count_Drachma posted...

Wish SCOTUS would get off their fat asses and rule the death penalty unconstitutional

That's one of the things I'm glad they haven't ruled on, because some people just need killin'.

The real problem with it - like most things - is that the problem isn't the final outcome, it's the systemic process you take to get there. But systemic reform is hard, and requires both skill and sacrifice, so no facet of our government will ever commit to it.

Much easier to just make sweeping declarations and stop-gap "solutions" that give the illusion of solving things without actually solving anything. Because hey, everything stays terrible and continues to fall apart, but at least you get reelected.

Im currently representing myself in court

I figure Im one half Saul Goodman, one half of a half of Matt Murdock, and the rest is Duckman

This is the court that will overturn a Democrat victory in 2024. They don't give two shits about the will of the people.

VampireCoyote posted...

Im currently representing myself in court

99% of the time this is a horrible idea

Jen0125 posted...

99% of the time this is a horrible idea

And that 1% of the time is when you are Johnnie Cochran.

VampireCoyote posted...

Im currently representing myself in court

I figure Im one half Saul Goodman, one half of a half of Matt Murdock, and the rest is Duckman

When can you start?

ParanoidObsessive posted...

That's one of the things I'm glad they haven't ruled on, because some people just need killin'.

I've always supported the death penalty because of this.
Heinous murderers where there's no doubt they did it -- like Dylan Roof or Nicholas Cruz -- should be executed. There's no reason to let them live.

But after this atrocity of a SC ruling, I am totally fine w/ capital punishment being banned. This is fucking horrendous. I will NEVER accept the government willfully murdering an innocent person just so the real scum bags can be taken out, too. This ruling outright says "innocence is not enough". If you're found guilty for bs reasons and later can cast significant doubt or outright disprove your guilt, it doesn't matter. The state can murder you anyway.
This is, with absolutely zero hyperbole, the worst decision the Supreme Court has ever made. Blatantly innocent people will die because of this, and nobody will be able to save them.

The SC really wishes they were the Imperium's Inquisition

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/2/4/AABsC-AADRA8.jpg

how does a person defend capital punishment but also think abortions are immoral?

sodium-chloride posted...

how does a person defend capital punishment but also think abortions are immoral?

Republicans: The fetus did nothing wrong!
Rational person: Neither did the inmate in this case
Republicans: Villainous Blue Screen of Death (the trope is usually a Heroic BSoD, but that would be an inaccurate name, in this case)

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainousBSOD

Metalsonic66 posted...

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainousBSOD

Huh
Had only ever seen the Heroic one before.
TVTropes truly is endless

Gaawa_chan posted...

You can read the logic of the ruling and the dissent in the link:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/conservative-majority-hollows-out-precedent-on-ineffective-counsel-claims-in-federal-court/

You guys better hope you never get a shitty lawyer. SC is pissing our rights away.

Do you have a list of their recent trash rulings?

Count_Drachma posted...

Wish SCOTUS would get off their fat asses and rule the death penalty unconstitutional, but they can't get their fat asses out of their seats and, even if they could, they'd likely break the chairs because they have some fat asses.

Under what amendment would it be unconstitutional?

Zareth posted...

This is the court that will overturn a Democrat victory in 2024. They don't give two shits about the will of the people.

The Supreme Court is not suppose to care about the will of the people, they are supposed to interpret law.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The real problem with it - like most things - is that the problem isn't the final outcome, it's the systemic process you take to get there

I mean, 99.99% of the time, the problem is still the outcome. The number of times it might be justified are almost non-existent -- the only time it might be reasonable is if you couldn't safely contain somebody and that individual posed a major risk to society. Basically a supervillain.

Zareth posted...

This is the court that will overturn a Democrat victory in 2024. They don't give two shits about the will of the people.

Oh lawdy... the same song and dance that's been going for decades now.

sodium-chloride posted...

how does a person defend capital punishment but also think abortions are immoral?

Holy false equivocations, Batman!

You could justify the reverse of that argument, but you can't justify that argument. However, capital punishment should be banned and life sentences should probably be banned, too.

hey zues since you're not using the zeus account can i have it

i mean you seem to have the many alts while i just have this one, i think you can spare one

ultra magnus13 posted...

The Supreme Court is not suppose to care about the will of the people, they are supposed to interpret law.

another reason that the Supreme Court should be destroyed

VampireCoyote posted...

another reason that the Supreme Court should be destroyed

Troll account? Or just someone that has no idea how the branches of the U.S. government and separation of powers work?

ultra magnus13 posted...

Troll account? Or just someone that has no idea how the branches of the U.S. government and separation of powers work?

Oh I understand perfectly well

Ive held the position for a couple decades now that the Supreme Court should be abolished. Theyre a bunch of unelected officials that do not reflect the people yet decide the fates of millions.

We dont need a cabal to interpret the constitution, what we need to do is REWRITE the fucking thing.

They should be dragged out.

VampireCoyote posted...

Oh I understand perfectly well

No you clearly don't.

ultra magnus13 posted...

No you clearly don't.

Well its been fun chatting with you.