SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Thomas dissent rips into Kavanaugh SCOTUS opinion – over racial politics
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Thomas dissent rips into Kavanaugh SCOTUS opinion – over racial politics Login/Join 
Lawyers, Guns
and Money
Picture of chellim1
posted
Thomas dissent rips into Kavanaugh SCOTUS opinion – over racial politics

There have been 783,453 homicides in this country since the black-robed masters “allowed” us to continue our constitutional heritage of meting out capital punishment for murderers. Yet despite the raucous debate surrounding its use, just 1,500 individuals have been executed in 43 years. That is because the worst, most cold-blooded murderers have many ways to overturn capital convictions even when the evidence is beyond a shadow of a doubt. In recent years, Chief Justice John Roberts has been joining the Left in opening up a new avenue to disqualify such convictions: namely, tainting the jury pools as racist. With today’s opinion, it’s clear he now has a companion in Justice Kavanaugh.

In Flowers v. Mississippi, Kavanaugh wrote a 7-2 majority opinion overturning a sixth conviction of a cold-blooded murderer who was convicted of killing four people 23 years ago. Although he was convicted with evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt, in Kavanagh’s view the jury pool was racist. Overturning state due process: This is yet another example of the growing trend of the federal courts taking over state criminal law procedures and according the worst criminals a degree of process that would confound our Founders. And it’s most often because of racial politics.

Nobody disputes the fact that the Mississippi courts convicted Curtis Flowers for the murders based on solid eyewitness and physical evidence and that the jury’s verdict itself was impartial. However, Kavanaugh and the other six justices believes that the Mississippi Supreme Court erred in ruling that one particular peremptory (discretionary) strike conducted by the prosecutor against someone in the jury pool at jury selection for the original trial was animated by “discriminatory intent” and therefore entitles Flowers to a seventh trial!

“In sum, the State’s pattern of striking black prospective jurors persisted from Flowers’ first trial through Flowers’ sixth trial,” concluded Kavanaugh in an opinion that was tinged with racial overtones about the suspect being black and the witnesses, prosecutors, and victims being white. “In the six trials combined, the State struck 41 of the 42 black prospective jurors it could have struck. At the sixth trial, the State struck five of six.”

Justice Thomas shot back in his dissent and noted that not only does he disagree with the underlying premise and recent precedent (in Foster v. Chatman) that such facts would be grounds to overturn a conviction, but he disagrees with the notion that there was discriminatory intent. “The only clear errors in this case are committed by today’s majority,” wrote a clearly irate Thomas, who is getting tired of these cases.

Confirming that we never should have taken this case, the Court almost entirely ignores—and certainly does not refute—the race-neutral reasons given by the State for striking Wright and four other black prospective jurors. Two of these prospective jurors knew Flowers’ family and had been sued by Tardy Furniture—the family business of one of the victims and also of one of the trial witnesses. One refused to consider the death penalty and apparently lied about working side-by-side with Flowers’ sister. One was related to Flowers and lied about her opinion of the death penalty to try to get out of jury duty. And one said that because she worked with two of Flowers’ family members, she might favor him and would not consider only the evidence presented. The state courts’ findings that these strikes were not based on race are the opposite of clearly erroneous; they are clearly correct.

In Thomas’ view, “Today’s decision distorts the record of this case, eviscerates our standard of review, and vacates four murder convictions because the State struck a juror who would have been stricken by any competent attorney.”

Thomas accused the court of granting appeal “because the case has received a fair amount of media attention” and charged the majority with replacing careful trial records of the facts with “entertaining melodrama” that will result in “the litigation and relitigation of criminal trials in the media, to the potential detriment of all parties.”

He concluded, “Any competent prosecutor would have struck the jurors struck below. Indeed, some of the jurors’ conflicts might even have justified for-cause strikes.”

Thomas went on to say that under the Batson v. Kentucky (1986) precedent of invalidating convictions based on charges of discriminatory intent by the prosecutor in jury selection, the standard the Supreme Court must use is “whether the state courts were clearly wrong.” Thomas believes the answer is “obviously no,” based on a wealth of counter-evidence he cites in his lengthy dissent. “Yet the Court [majority] discovers ‘clear error’ based on its own review of a near-decade-old record. The majority apparently thinks that it is in a better position than the trial court to judge the tone of the questions and answers, the demeanor of the attorneys and jurors, the courtroom dynamic, and the culture of Winona, Mississippi.”

Thomas ended his dissent by essentially accusing the majority of ignoring the facts in order to engage in race-based virtue-signaling: “Although the Court’s opinion might boost its self-esteem, it also needlessly prolongs the suffering of four victims’ families.”

Justice Gorsuch joined this part of the dissent, which once again demonstrates that we only have two originalists on the court, not five. Yet, still, Thomas stands in a league of his own. He seems to be the only one willing to consistently follow the Constitution. Gorsuch did not join “part IV” of Thomas’ dissent, in which Thomas declares his disdain for the entire premise “that a duly convicted criminal go free because a juror was arguably deprived of his right to serve on the jury,” in Thomas’ words, established in the “sacred” Batson v. Kentucky case.

Thomas believes that Batson was “a departure from the previous century of jurisprudence” causing the court for the next few decades to move “its focus from the protections accorded the defendant to the perceptions of a hypothetical struck juror.” He accused Batson of disregarding “Article III’s limitations on standing by giving a windfall to a convicted criminal who, even under Batson’s logic, suffered no injury” and of forcing “equal protection principles onto a procedure designed to give parties absolute discretion in making individual strikes.”

What’s the bottom line for originalists? We only have one solid originalist on the court. Gorsuch is a very reliable ally of Thomas in most cases, but he often won’t go as far in rolling back existing bad precedent, depending on the issue. Alito has become unreliable on many issues, even as he remains quite solid on others. In this case, he indicated that while he normally doesn’t like overturning such convictions, he felt this case was “likely one of a kind.” And Kavanaugh is the new Roberts.

The Left has successfully enmeshed its entire agenda into racially sensitive jurisprudence, wrapping its abortion, election law, immigration, sexuality, and criminal law agenda in an identity politics juggernaut that only Thomas seems to be willing to confront head-on. If you think for a moment that there exists anywhere near a majority to stop the expansion of bad precedents – especially when they intersect with race-baiting politics – you are living in a conservative dream world.

https://www.conservativereview...ion-racial-politics/



"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."
-- Justice Janice Rogers Brown

"The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth."
-rduckwor
 
Posts: 23919 | Location: St. Louis, MO | Registered: April 03, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
goodheart
Picture of sjtill
posted Hide Post
All I can say is it could be much worse. Thank God for Clarence Thomas, and may be remain many years on the Supreme Court, and convince other "conservatives" to show some backbone rather than pander to Leftist virtue-signaling.


_________________________
“ What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.”— Lord Melbourne
 
Posts: 18004 | Location: One hop from Paradise | Registered: July 27, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
quarter MOA visionary
Picture of smschulz
posted Hide Post
So since this killer's conviction was overturned does that mean they get to try him again?
 
Posts: 22842 | Location: Houston, TX | Registered: June 11, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Thomas is completely wrong on this one. The other 7 justices got it right.

I have spent too much time picking juries where the Government struck or attempted to strike black jurors merely because they are black. This is not how our justice system works.
 
Posts: 2044 | Registered: September 19, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lawyers, Guns
and Money
Picture of chellim1
posted Hide Post
quote:
Thank God for Clarence Thomas, and may be remain many years on the Supreme Court, and convince other "conservatives" to show some backbone rather than pander to Leftist virtue-signaling.

Smile Cool

He's my favorite Justice by far... certainly since the death of Scalia.
I had the opportunity and good fortune to spend a little time with Justice Thomas at a SLU LAW Federalist Society event we invited him to here in the late 80's.
Clarence Thomas lived and worked here as a young lawyer.



"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."
-- Justice Janice Rogers Brown

"The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth."
-rduckwor
 
Posts: 23919 | Location: St. Louis, MO | Registered: April 03, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Political Cynic
Picture of nhtagmember
posted Hide Post
was he guilty or innocent?

the evidence said he was guilty 6 times

who gives a fuck about the color of the jury? Six times?

the evidence didn't change, the jury did and he was still found guilty

I think the problem is the USSC on this one



[B] Against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC


 
Posts: 53071 | Location: Tucson Arizona | Registered: January 16, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by nhtagmember:
was he guilty or innocent?

the evidence said he was guilty 6 times

who gives a fuck about the color of the jury? Six times?

the evidence didn't change, the jury did and he was still found guilty

I think the problem is the USSC on this one


If you read the US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, there is no reference to "guilt or innocents" as it relates to how they are applied to the defendant charged in a crime.

Second, he was not found guilty 6 times.

Third, we are entitled to a jury of our peers, and the courts are settled on what that terms means.

I always find it interesting how anyone even hints at some restriction to the 2nd Amendment and many will scream, but it seems some of you could give a shit about the 4th, 5th, 6th or 8th Amendments.
 
Posts: 2044 | Registered: September 19, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Rail-less
and
Tail-less
posted Hide Post
He wasn’t convicted six times. There was at least one hung jury I believe and the verdict was thrown out multiple times due to prosecutorial misconduct. The case was 100% circumstantial with no direct evidence tying flowers to the murders. The main witness was a jail house snitch who went on a killing spree before his arrest. He states he was promised leniency with an old drug case by the prosecutor in question. He has now re-canted his statements. Read up on the Flowers case or listen to the podcast the basically got his case re-opened and tell me if you think he is guilty “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” The most damming evidence in his case were people who said they saw flowers that morning walking in the area.

A single back juror who caused one of the hung juries was sent to jail for contempt for hanging the jury. The judge said that he perjured himself in the selection process by denying knowing the defendant but as it turns out when they re-read the transcripts he was never asked if he did or didn’t know him.

The prosecutor used all his strikes against black jurors. He even refused to strike white jurors who admitted to knowing the defendant in favor of black jurors who didn’t. Then there’s the possible murder weapon found by resident near the scene linked to another suspect that mysteriously disappeared from police custody before any testing. This case stinks to high heaven and I’m glad it got thrown out.


_______________________________________________
Use thumb-size bullets to create fist-size holes.
 
Posts: 13190 | Location: Charlotte, NC | Registered: May 07, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I have not yet begun
to procrastinate
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
Thomas is completely wrong on this one. The other 7 justices got it right.
I have spent too much time picking juries where the Government struck or attempted to strike black jurors merely because they are black. This is not how our justice system works.

Are you saying that you WOULDN'T have struck these jurors???

Two of these prospective jurors knew Flowers’ family and had been sued by Tardy Furniture—the family business of one of the victims and also of one of the trial witnesses. One refused to consider the death penalty and apparently lied about working side-by-side with Flowers’ sister. One was related to Flowers and lied about her opinion of the death penalty to try to get out of jury duty. And one said that because she worked with two of Flowers’ family members, she might favor him and would not consider only the evidence presented.

Flowers has 4 convictions over 6 trials.
They should drop the states desire for the death penalty and go for life without possibility of parole.


--------
After the game, the King and the pawn go into the same box.
 
Posts: 3771 | Location: Central AZ | Registered: October 26, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Rail-less
and
Tail-less
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by KMitch200:
quote:
Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
Thomas is completely wrong on this one. The other 7 justices got it right.
I have spent too much time picking juries where the Government struck or attempted to strike black jurors merely because they are black. This is not how our justice system works.

Are you saying that you WOULDN'T have struck these jurors???

Two of these prospective jurors knew Flowers’ family and had been sued by Tardy Furniture—the family business of one of the victims and also of one of the trial witnesses. One refused to consider the death penalty and apparently lied about working side-by-side with Flowers’ sister. One was related to Flowers and lied about her opinion of the death penalty to try to get out of jury duty. And one said that because she worked with two of Flowers’ family members, she might favor him and would not consider only the evidence presented.

Flowers has 4 convictions over 6 trials.
They should drop the states desire for the death penalty and go for life without possibility of parole.


That’s a handful of jurors. 41 of his 42 strikes were used on black jurors. He also didn’t strike white jurors that admitted to knowing the defendant.

I’ll tell you one thing if Evans decides to try this case again he has zero fucking chance of a conviction now that his star witness re-canted and accuses Evans of offering leniency for testimony. The evidence is weaker than the democratic candidates for presidency thus far.


_______________________________________________
Use thumb-size bullets to create fist-size holes.
 
Posts: 13190 | Location: Charlotte, NC | Registered: May 07, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Political Cynic
Picture of nhtagmember
posted Hide Post
given the fact that he'll likely die before execution, isn't that what they wanted

the death penalty without death?



[B] Against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC


 
Posts: 53071 | Location: Tucson Arizona | Registered: January 16, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Master of one hand
pistol shooting
Picture of Hamden106
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
Thomas is completely wrong on this one. The other 7 justices got it right.

I have spent too much time picking juries where the Government struck or attempted to strike black jurors merely because they are black. This is not how our justice system works.


Could it be the jurors struck were excused as they did not show impartiality to the races involved?



SIGnature
NRA Benefactor CMP Pistol Distinguished
 
Posts: 6287 | Location: Oregon | Registered: September 01, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Rail-less
and
Tail-less
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hamden106:
quote:
Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
Thomas is completely wrong on this one. The other 7 justices got it right.

I have spent too much time picking juries where the Government struck or attempted to strike black jurors merely because they are black. This is not how our justice system works.


Could it be the jurors struck were excused as they did not show impartiality to the races involved?


He definitely tried harder to excuse them. For instance white jurors in the last trial were asked one question each during jury selection by the prosecution. Black prospective jurors were asked an average of 29 questions each.


_______________________________________________
Use thumb-size bullets to create fist-size holes.
 
Posts: 13190 | Location: Charlotte, NC | Registered: May 07, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
Thomas is completely wrong on this one. The other 7 justices got it right.

I have spent too much time picking juries where the Government struck or attempted to strike black jurors merely because they are black. This is not how our justice system works.


Yes. The state clearly struck as many black jurors as it could, without reason other than their race. In two of the other trials even the Mississippi state Supreme Court agreed and overturned other convictions. The prosecutor cheated like a motherfucker.

As to Flowers' guilt, it is far from certain. In fact, it seems more likely he wasn't guilty. The investigation was more like a railroad job than a police investigation. Flowers didn't have money or counsel with the ability to meaningfully fight the state.




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 53116 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hamden106:
quote:
Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
Thomas is completely wrong on this one. The other 7 justices got it right.

I have spent too much time picking juries where the Government struck or attempted to strike black jurors merely because they are black. This is not how our justice system works.


Could it be the jurors struck were excused as they did not show impartiality to the races involved?


No. Don't make up facts or speculate.

In one of the earlier trials that was overturned, the prosecutor's notes indicated that he was noting which veniremen were black. In the last trial he focused on the black panel members and asked them about ten times as many questions as the white panel members. He was clearly fishing for something he could use as a justification to strike black people. Over the course of six trials, the prosecutor has so successfully stricken blacks from the jury panels that in a state which is 38% black, he has had no more than 2 black people on any given jury, and sometimes had none.

Some of the other trials were overturned for other reasons. The prosecutor is not following the rules.

If you learn about the facts of this case, it becomes apparent that the investigators focused on this defendant early, and then built a case to support their early supposition. They bullied potential witnesses, procured a jailhouse snitch (while not revealing the quid pro quo the snitch got for snitching), ignored evidence which didn't suit them, ignored other suspects, and even lost a gun which might have been the murder weapon (and the place where it was found didn't fit the narrative the prosecutor presented). The snitch has now recanted his earlier testimony.

As I said, they railroaded this defendant. That is bad enough. Then the prosecutor cheated by striking black potential jurors and by not sharing potentially exculpatory evidence as he is required to do.

This reversal is absolutely the right result, especially since the death penalty is on the line.




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 53116 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Southflorida-law:

As I said, they railroaded this defendant. That is bad enough. Then the prosecutor cheated by striking black potential jurors and by not sharing potentially exculpatory evidence as he is required to do.

.


I may sound like a liberal weenie to some, but I have always felt that any prosecutor who fails to share any potentially exculpatory evidence with the defense should face criminal sanctions themselves. You really want innocent people in prison? I sure as hell don't.
 
Posts: 1034 | Location: New Jersey  | Registered: May 03, 2019Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fed161:
quote:
Originally posted by Southflorida-law:

As I said, they railroaded this defendant. That is bad enough. Then the prosecutor cheated by striking black potential jurors and by not sharing potentially exculpatory evidence as he is required to do.

.


I may sound like a liberal weenie to some, but I have always felt that any prosecutor who fails to share any potentially exculpatory evidence with the defense should face criminal sanctions themselves. You really want innocent people in prison? I sure as hell don't.


It is the law, but there are no sanctions beyond getting your convictions overturned. Prosecutors are supposed to seek justice, not just convictions. The incentives are out of whack - they are encourage getting convictions.

I would support some sanctions for prosecutors who violate those rules knowingly, and with the intent to violate.

We had a prosecutor here in Houston who once tried to excuse not disclosing exculpatory evidence by saying that she did not believe the potentially exculpatory testimony, so it was not therefore, exculpatory. She was never sanctioned to my knowledge, but this and other excesses eventually derailed her career in the prosecutor's office and ruined her chance to run for DA.




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 53116 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Rail-less
and
Tail-less
posted Hide Post
If you guys want to get some background on this case you can watch the 2 part docuseries the Wrong Man on STARZ.


_______________________________________________
Use thumb-size bullets to create fist-size holes.
 
Posts: 13190 | Location: Charlotte, NC | Registered: May 07, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Thomas dissent rips into Kavanaugh SCOTUS opinion – over racial politics

© SIGforum 2024