I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that Scalia and Thomas were the 2...

Ace, thanks as always for the link!

Actually it is no longer the top story on my blog. I just posted about the Priscilla Owens vote, where 18 senators still voted to continue the filibuster. Do those 7 RINO's still trust the Democrats?

Russell, you of course are correct.

That's a horrible story. I can't believe *7* justices gathered together for this one.

You know what else is an indicator of the state's determination that the *convicted murderer* is a danger to the community? The fact that he's kept in jail instead of out on bond between conviction and sentencing. Or, the fact that armed officers escort him into the courtroom. Or perhaps it's the orange jumpsuit.

Or, again, perhaps it's the fact the the very same jury just convicted the murdering son of a bitch.

Sweet lord. . . how the hell is this law? The death penalty is constitutional, but shackles for convicted murderers aren't?

I'm so sick of judges reading shit into the Constitution that isn't there. Few things in life piss me off more than that. Maybe carnies, but few others.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Wait, didn't that guy in Georgia murder a few cops and break free because he wasn't shackled?

I couldn't believe this was as stupid as it seems on it's face; there has to be some information left out of the story, I thought.

There isn't.
The Supremes lost they minds.

Ron -

Yeah, and he was changing out of his prison clothes because of this same prejudice bullshit.

Look here. The sonofabitch is in street clothes again, wearing only ankle shackles and no handcuffs. It's like we give these fuckers invitations reading "KILL US! KILL US DEAD 'CAUSE OUR JUDGES ARE TOO STUPID FOR US TO LIVE!"

Lovely, ain't it?

More of the leinient judges giving their leinient decisions its time for them to be held laible

I knew he was black. After all, everyone knows that the Evil White Man shackled this prisoner just to make him appear to be more dangerous than the convicted murderer he is, to worsen his sentence, degrade him, and rob him of his masculinity by psychologically "torturing" (shades of Abu Graib!) him with reminders of the days of slavery. The sight (or even the allegation) of a black man in shackles will make any Knee-Jerk-Liberal react in the most bizarre fashion, as happened here.

AND WE JUST COMPROMISED?

Can we trade them to another team?

Yeah, how 'bout the Iraqui National Government? They'll get a first rate education on really dangerous defendants?

Safety comes first. But, you can shackle defendants in court without the jury being aware of it. It's done all the time. No reason why it couldn't have been done in this case.

Someone should add a dunce cap to the statue of justice.

Oh cool, gun discussion. :D I have 9 semiautomatic handguns (2x .50, 2x 10mm, 1x .45, 3x .357, 1x .22) 2 rifles (1x Browning 10ga, 1x Barrett M468), and a cute li'l revolver (.22) with an etched mother-of-pearl grip. I just got the Barrett and it's the one I'm having the most fun with right now. I love new toys.[looking around]

Uh... what?

I have three revolvers a Taurus .357 silver snub which I love (accurate as hell!), an old Smith .357 State Trooper, a Smith model 604 .44 mag and a Colt Commander (which is so accurate I can hit a bullseye at 50 yds when I do my part) one Remington 870 Wingmaster 12 ga, one Remington 870 magnum 12 ga, an NEF "Pardner" cheap single shot 12 ga which is really fun) two Remington 700 7mm mags one of which has been restocked and rebarreled for accuracy (super at 300 yds), and a bunch of old military rifles: a Russian 1954 SKS 7.62X39, a 1917 Moisin Nagant Czarist Russian rifle 7.62X54 w/ Imperial markings, a 1918 8mm German Mauser Imperial markings, two WWII Nazi 1941-2 Mausers w/ eagle head swastikas, a 1940 Remington 03-A3 with four grooves, two Swedish 6.5mm WWII rifles, an 1867 Remington Rolling Block in .45-70, and my pride and joy: a May 1944 M-1 that shows use and could've been at Normandy. Very reliable, and if I ever got in a jam, the M-1 is what I'd want.

ABOVE FROM DRUNKEN VIRGINS

Oh yes, and a Ruger 10-22 target rifle.

And oh yes, this was posted to that pistol packin' Megan!

Gee, guess I've been preempted by the ACE. Shucks, will have to start a gun discussion later.

Jeesh! Maybe you guys should actually read the opinion before you declare civilization as we know it has come to an end.

The court held that the constitution forbids the use of visible shackles unless there is a justification such as courtroom security. IOW, even visible shackles are permissible when necessary. However, unless the defendant is a raving maniac in court, there is no need for them to be visible.

Does seeing shackles have an adverse effect on a jury? Yes it does. And remember, constitutional protections apply to all defendants -- not just capital defendants. You want to declare that those guilty of the most heinous crimes don't deserve certain protections -- okay. But the same protections, or lack of protections, will also apply to defendants that are not guilty of heinous crimes and are not scum and deserve a fair trial and every right and protection the constitution affords.

"unless the defendant is a raving maniac in court, there is no need for them to be visible"

The festering pile of shit coming out of you would've been funnier before the 11th of March, asshole.

On second thought, no, it wouldn't have. Not really.

But the same protections, or lack of protections, will also apply to defendants that are not guilty of heinous crimes

I thought the point here was that the court was ruling specifically on the applicability of the no-shackles rule to a convicted murderer. The ruling does not apply to defendants that are not guilty. They are already protected from being shackled unnecessarily.

That being said, I agree with you that the howls of outrage about this decision have been overblown. Even a convicted murderer has the right to an unbiased jury during the sentencing phase of the case (and in some cases this may be a different jury from the one that convicted him). There is no question that a defendant who shows up in shackles for the sentencing hearing is at an acute, and frequently unwarranted, disadvantage. The court merely ruled that you cannot impose this liability on a defendant who otherwise has behaved in court, shows no propensity to harm anyone else (for example, if the original murder was a crime of passion not likely to be repeated in court), is not a flight risk (given the presence of armed bailiffs and deputies), etc.

If the defendant presents any kind of risk, the decision gives the judge the discretion to restrain him. The judge's discretion to make this call will be virtually bullet-proof on appeal.

Quiet, Butters.

Our moral betters have decreed again! Again our kings have looked into their hearts, peered deeply into their souls and what they know there of 'fairness' and discovered a new 'Due Process' right previously unknown to the nation and it's lowly, Nascar citizenry.

Is there a 'taint' from shackles, even to the juror's who have already convicted the shackled? Yes. Is it more 'fair' to present the defendant as a khaki's n' blazer insurance salesman? Yes. Has he been denied the process of law? No.

("But they're such just and fair kings. And it really should be in the Constitution. It really should.")

N.B. The defendant, Carman Deck, has a website. You may peruse his poetry and musings on justice here.

Quiet, Butters.

Aww, Megan. You just hate it when I make sense, don't you.

I don't know yet. :)

Again our kings have looked into their hearts, peered deeply into their souls and what they know there of 'fairness' and discovered a new 'Due Process' right previously unknown to the nation and it's lowly, Nascar citizenry.

Excuse me, but the mere phrase "due process of law" can mean anything to anyone. It's the job of the judiciary to consider all the facts (which develop over time) and decide what is fundamentally fair in a given situation. Judges are not perfect, but they are nevertheless obligated by their oath of office to make tough choices in difficult cases. That's what we pay them for. Sorry, but they're just earning their salary, not attempting to be kings. I think they deserve some respect. Personally, I wouldn't want the job.

(Unless, of course, I could be a member of the OREGON SUPREME COURT).

Sheesh.

I don't know yet.

Well, at least we're on opposite sides of an issue again. Hopefully Cedarford will weigh in on my side, and I can start having fun.

Michael: I agree with your notion of judge's being required to do a hard job and don't deserve slagging when they make tough calls in tough cases. Can't please everyone. But I disagree with the notion, seemingly underlying, your words that our Constitution, via it's due process clause, asks Justices to make unbounded decisions as to what is or isn't appropriately 'fair.'

I will admit I haven't read the decision yet. Can't find any link. Might not even be published yet. But I do know they ground it in the due process clause.

So where did the judges' look to determine whether a man, previously found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, now standing for sentencing, has been deprived of due process of law if the sentencing party sees him in shackles? To neither practice nor precedent.

In the state's that have long practiced jury death determinations, this is par for the course. Defendant's get shackled for sentencing. (The def. has just been convicted of murder. Common sense safety concerns would have you shackle the guy.)

So where did the majority look, if to neither practice nor precedent? Inward, as they always do. To their personal standard of fairness. Whether it strikes their conscience's as wrong. (and I admit, it strikes me a little funny too. Why possibly influence a sentencing jury with an extraneous factor that can be avoided.)

No, I am not saying they have bad conscience's, just that their conscience's aren't what govern us. Our Constitution does. And what had been previously perfectly acceptable is now 'Unconstitutional' not because of a new amendment, not because the document has changed, or practice or precedent, but because conscience of the 7 judges - whose job it is to fairly interpret the written will of the people - can no longer abide it.

Now, as I said, I haven't read it and I could be wrong, but I know how Justices really, really like to discover due process rights that mirror their innermost desires. And I will withdraw my criticism if the majority doesn't ground their ruling in a newly intuited 'evolving understanding in our nation's collective conscience' or some such. Be nice if I was wrong, but I doubt it.

Are you drinking again, megan? Unable to distinguish between visible and unvisible shackles? Are you saying that unless YOU can see them, they don't really exist? Time for you to dry out.

No, I am not saying they have bad conscience's, just that their conscience's aren't what govern us. Our Constitution does.

Just plain wrong. Their consciences do govern us. The Constitution does not say what due process means. So, they have to decide, and they cannot do so without resort to their own notions of what is fair.

And, while we're talking, we are also governed by the consciences of legislatures and executives at every level, from Congress and the President to city councils and mayors. That's their job. Our freedom lies in the fact that we get to elect people who, hopefully, have a conscience.

Michael:

If holdings were limited to the specific facts before them, they would not offer any guidance to the lower courts. They said the same constitutional protections that apply in a guilt phase, also apply in the penalty phase. And remember, they were referring to visible shackles – not no shackles. But, yes, they are saying that it has to be “justified by an essential state interest – such as courtroom security - specific to the defendant.” If for some reason the shackles are visible, it is okay so long as it is justified. This goes beyond capital cases. You just can't shackle defendants as a matter of routine under any circumstances.

I believe this applies when sentencing is only before a judge. I have had clients they shackled – juveniles, routinely, because they were sentenced to youth authority. They had ridiculous low level offenses compounded by the fact they were chronic runaways. I had one little girl that was so tiny that when no one was looking, she would slip them off and back on, just to make me laugh. Not much security there, as if there was a need in the first place. Her crimes: Runaway, steal food which would be charged as a burglary, try to out run a police cruiser on her bike which would be charged as an evading, so on and so.

I started "going off" on them when they would pull that crap. Anyway, they backed off from doing it at least while I was there. I guess they were afraid they would have to shackle me! It's much nicer to have legal authority from the highest court in the land to work with though. ;)

BTW, the worst judicial abuses of the elastic due process clause were perpetrated by the "consciences" of conservative justices, who developed the notion of "substantive due process" to dismantle critical elements of FDR's New Deal. (Which led to FDR's infamous, but never realized, scheme to expand the size of the court and pack it with liberals.)

Fortunately, the court today largely limits the application of the due process clause to questions of procedure, i.e., the method by which the judicial system makes decisions, rather that using this clause to second-guess the underlying fairness of legislation. (Now they use the equal protection clause for that purpose, but that's another story.)

Well, then what I'd like to see is every prisoner with a death sentence appealed to the Supreme Court be presented in front of the Supremes, unshackled.

With the usual level of security that courts below the Supremes have.

Let a Nichols leap up and pound silly ninny O'Connor's face to hamburger, get the two foreign-Constitution loving Internationalists - Breyer and Ginzburg with a hidden shiv, or bend David Souter over and make him squeal like a pig.

Perhaps they might appreciate Scalia and Thomas's argument better, and what they are inflicting on lower courtrooms that way.

It would be great. Appeal to the Supremes on behalf of of some 6'5" beast awaiting execution, if a hearing is granted, tell them that your client doesn't care if he lives or dies, but wishes to be right in frontof them when the verdict is read and file a motion..

Piss-soaked robes...

!

Hey Megan. Cedarford's on your side.

Damn. Have fun.

If holdings were limited to the specific facts before them, they would not offer any guidance to the lower courts.

C'mon, you're a lawyer. Strictly speaking, holdings are limited to the specific facts before the court. That's just hornbook law. Of course, lower courts will try to extrapolate their own rulings from these precedents to different fact sets in order to honor the priniciple of stare decisis. But still, the ruling officially applies only to the facts presented to the court. That's been the governing principle of the English common law for centuries.

Their consciences do govern us.

No argument. The issue, of course is should

The Constitution does not say what due process means. So, they have to decide, and they cannot do so without resort to their own notions of what is fair.

Correct, the Constitution does not actually say what any of it means. No handy glossary. That's why we (or I) are arguing over the proper method of interpreting the thing.

I prefer the understanding of the words as they were meant at adoption, under which the practice of shackling before a sentencing jury wouldn't merit a second glance. You endorse a more 'living constitutiuon' concept where judges search their sensibilites and then tell you what the law is. Gotcha.

But, what constrains the judges at all in your view? Sure, descriptively speaking, they have the power to say any clause means anything at all. Again, no argument. And as you detail: "the worst judicial abuses of the elastic due process clause were perpetrated by the "consciences" of conservative justices." Wont't argue that.

But what made their actions 'abuses,' as you descrbe, if that was the result of searching their consciences? How is the notion of 'abuse' even possible in your philosphy of interpretatin (save a Justice not being true to themselves?)

Now, maybe terms like 'due process' and 'cruel and unusual,' due to their vagueness, seem to beg more strongly an appeal to the nation's presently expressed standards/practices, but to the judge's inner standards? Really raises a question of 'what is the legitimate source of governmental power.' I wonder if we have different answers to that.

But what made their actions 'abuses,' as you descrbe, if that was the result of searching their consciences?

I'll tell you. The authors of "substantive due process" lost their perspective. They lost the fundamental understanding of their situation and their limited role.

Which was:

No guns.

No money.

Meaning, the authority of the court rests entirely on moral credibility. Meaning, they need to be mighty fucking careful when they intrude on political issues.

Which is why Roe v. Wade is just so fucking wrong. I'm personally not too stressed about the result. I think abortion is wrong in the eyes of God -- but that doesn't necessarily make it a criminal issue.

I'm very stressed about the fact that the Supreme Court would issue a decision that is, intellectually, nearly a joke. And, I'm even more stressed about the fact that the Supreme Court would intervene in an area best left to state legislatures, which were on track to legalize abortion in any event (at least enough states so that women could drive to a legal one, rather than flying to Sweden, the alternative for rich kids at the time).

Don't play semantic games with me. Think/believe whatever you want.

"Unable to distinguish between visible and unvisible shackles"

When the absence of your "unvisible" shackles starts killing people, bitch, then we'll talk.

Until then, shut your fucking mouth, 'k?

Sorry, bitch, I don't have conversations with drunk retards.

Oh, play to your strengths, darlin' anon. ;)

Hey! I got a great idea! Mummify these convicted felons! That way the color of their skin won't be a factor, it would be harder for them to move, and you can add a whole new meaning to the "elastic due process clause!"
:-) :-) :-) LOL

No one could rival you in the drunk retard category. I am sure if you weren't already passed out or making your nightly run to the liquor store, you would have a pithy response.