The four moderate and dissenting justices stated that the majority had chosen a "cramped interpretation" of the statute wholly incompatible with its purposes of preventing employment discrimination and ensuring equal opportunities for all workers based on merit. A decision consistent with the obvious intent of the law would have been to hold that Goodyear had engaged in a continuous act of discrimination over many years and used privacy protocols to ensure that this discrimination was not discoverable. Such conduct is the kind that Congress meant to proscribe. The neoconservatives chose a hyper-technical interpretation of the law that effectively defeated the very purpose of the law. It was, unfortunately, very typical of a neoconservative majority that never met a corporation it didn't like.
In re Troy Anthony Davis (2009)
Troy Anthony Davis was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death. Nearly all of the prosecution witnesses subsequently recanted, and several named a prosecution witness as the actual shooter. The moderate justices prevailed in this case, and took the unusual step of ordering the lower federal court to hold a hearing to determine whether the evidence provided credible proof of actual innocence. Justice Stevens reiterated a lower court judge's sentiment in so holding: "it would be an atrocious violation of our Constitution and the principles upon which it is based to execute an innocent person". Rational people universally agree that executing the innocent is not only amoral, but unconstitutional.
Shockingly, and typically, Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented. According to Justice Scalia, "this Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is "actually" innocent." Even if Justice Scalia is correct in that statement, it is an outrage that should be corrected. Any human being with a conscience, a moral compass and a rudimentary understanding of the founding principles would agree. Such callousness and disregard for fundamental principles of due process are deplorable in anyone holding a judicial position.
In one of the Court's most obscene rulings, the neoconservative majority held that a defendant who had been the victim of egregious prosecutorial misconduct could not collect damages. John Thompson was convicted of murder in the first degree as the result of not one, but four prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence. John Thompson had spent eighteen years in prison, fourteen of those years on death row awaiting execution, when a defense investigator found the evidence buried in the files of the New Orleans Police Department. Four prosecutors knew of this evidence and failed to turn it over to the defense. Just as importantly, these morally bankrupt prosecutors failed to adhere to their oath to seek justice, not just a conviction. After his release and exoneration, Thompson sued the District Attorney's Office. A federal jury declared their outrage by awarding him fourteen million dollars in damages. The judge concurred and added an award of one million dollars in attorneys' fees. This was a civil matter involving money that would serve as reparation for taking years of Thompson's life and subjecting him to the horrors of death row. But one could reasonably argue that these prosecutors should be jailed for malicious prosecution and/or obstruction of justice. That didn't happen.
So what did our neoconservative majority do? They overturned the jury's verdict and gave Thompson nothing. Thompson had argued that the District Attorney, Harry Connick should be held liable for failure to train his prosecutors regarding their legal obligation to turn over exculpatory evidence (Brady material) to the defense. In fact, Connick admitted at trial that the training in his office was inadequate. Connick himself had been sanctioned in the past for failure to turn over exculpatory evidence. The neoconservative majority found a way to ignore the overwhelming evidence of liability, and held that under the applicable federal law, Thompson was required to prove a pattern of misconduct, not a single incident of misconduct in order to prevail. They concluded that Thompson had not done so and overturned the jury's award.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
