Comments by "Don Taylor" (@dontaylor7315) on "SCOTUS Shoots Down Defendants Seeking Relief from State Courts" video.

Something tells me that in this court getting the people used to crimes against humanity is a good thing, because the plan is to get the focus away from this "rights" and "liberties" stuff and home in on the ultimate goal: making it impossible for the people to challenge the state or question authority.
20
@Caleb Fielding It's worse than that. In this instance the issue wasn't evidence withheld by prosecution but evidence the defense failed to provide, in other words a violation of the defendant's right to be REALLY represented by counsel.
15
@idrathernot_2 "Usually a voice of reason?" Thomas?? Thomas who???
10
@Eric Johnson Yes. I've said more than once that if a prosecutor wins a willful wrongful conviction that's exposed later the penalty should never be less than what was suffered by the victim of that prosecutor's wrongdoing.
8
@ezragonzalez8936 If I were planning a crime I'd be happy about this decision; it means there's a lot better chance they'll convict someone else who won't ever be able to get exonerated so they'll never look for me.
7
@M167A1 It's "yet another crime against the victim" to assume they don't need the REAL criminal brought to justice, they just need SOMEONE killed. Why give the guy on death row too many chances to exculpate himself? It just means you have to find the real perp when it's a lot easier to kill the guy you've already got. It's an insult to treat the victims like they don't need justice, they just need somebody convicted.
7
That's a beautifully succinct profile of the authoritarian personality.
7
@LadyLFLL @Ben Dover You're both right. It's a powerful tool for defense and exoneration and can also be a means of framing the innocent.
6
Exactly! You've summarized Thomas's sick mind with precision.
5
Typical right-wing justice: Because the crime was brutal, the state's right to leave the REAL perpetrator at large must not be infringed; the important thing is we've got somebody on death row and must get on with the execution.
2
@pilozm I agree prosecutors are unjustly shielded from consequences which is why I used the qualifier "should" since I'm aware nothing like that happens in real life. Also I only advocated eye-for-an-eye consequences for "a willful wrongful conviction" not for an honest mistake.
2
Projection maybe? If he vehemently argued his innocence while knowing he wasn't innocent, he might imagine ANYONE who argues their innocence is equally guilty.
2
@MrMartinSchou I agree with you but I don't think we're really talking about the same thing. You've profiled tribalism pretty accurately while I was thinking instead of authoritarianism. Both could be in play when decisions like this one are handed down but my opinion is it's authoritarianism more than tribalism. Either way, I'm on board with what you said about scapegoating doctors (and healthworkers in general).
2
That's true all too often but this time it was evidence omitted by the defense, which is just as bad if not worse. After all the state has a good-faith duty to provide the accused with adequate counsel, yes?
2
@bergmanoswell879 I've thought that was just about JFK's best quote ever since the first time I read it (I was in junior high and then high school during his presidency but didn't know he said that till later). I still hope peaceful revolution remains an option - most people still aren't giving it a chance because most people don't vote. The small number of lawmakers who run corporate-free campaigns, and work for the people instead of the ruling class, is slowly growing and if We The People get more engaged and elect more of them the SCOTUS could be reformed. There are plenty of ways that could be accomplished like term limits, forcing strict judicial ethics standards and/or expanding the bench. Probably there are potentially more measures that haven't even been proposed yet.
2
"Disappointing" is a very mild term for a decision that deliberately and cold-bloodedly enables yet more state-ordered homicides of the innocent.
1
@M167A1 If Congress passed ANYTHING that says federal courts can't enforce the 14th Amendment and the SCOTUS didn't strike it down then I'm mad at the Supreme Court AND Congress.
1
And here the SCOTUS argued "sanctity of the jury" in upholding the state's right to DENY the jury complete pertinent information.
1
@thomasmathews7421 I agree but I'm not even sure "both sides" is an applicable phrase. The local government that oversees (and fails to hold accountable) the prosecutors is the same local entity that pays (and doesn't demand adequate performance from) public defenders.
1
@thomasmathews7421 Again I agree, but demanding the best is no guarantee the attorney is listening - especially if they're being paid by the municipality.
1