News

31675 readers

1953 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Supreme Court’s Hand-Picked Advocate Argues in Favor of Killing Richard Glossip (theintercept.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archive link

Ordinarily, a state’s attorney general would be the one arguing to the high court that an execution should move forward. But since virtually the moment he took office in January 2023, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond has taken unprecedented action to spare Glossip’s life. In Drummond’s view, the case against Glossip was so tainted by prosecutorial misconduct that his conviction should be overturned.

Drummond told the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals as much last year, when he came forward to ask the court to vacate Glossip’s conviction and order a new trial. The court rejected the overture, however, clearing the way for Glossip’s execution. Glossip appealed to the Supreme Court for intervention, an effort that Drummond joined. As such, there was no one from Oklahoma arguing in favor of killing Glossip. Enter (Christopher G.) Michel, (former law clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts).

In a brief filed on July 8, Michel took on the task (of acting as advocate to deny a new trial) with gusto — even if his recitation of the facts of Glossip’s case, and of the lower court’s ruling, was misleading and incomplete. Michel argues that the court should pay no mind to Drummond’s concerns about the legality of executing Glossip. “Nothing in the Constitution compels a state court to provide a particular measure of deference to a state official’s confession of error,” Michel wrote. In other words, it doesn’t matter how flawed Drummond believes the case is, the court is under no obligation to take those concerns seriously.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The tricky thing here (as far as I understand it) is that the appeal to the Supreme Court is not about whether it was a good idea for the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals not to vacate the conviction. It's about whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals did something contrary to the law when it chose not to vacate. Does that court have a legal obligation according to the Constitution to defer to the Attorney General, not just in this case but in all similar cases?

I think that it is in fact true that "Nothing in the Constitution compels a state court to provide a particular measure of deference to a state official’s confession of error." Maybe there ought to be something like that in there but that's not the Supreme Court's job to decide (despite their trend of making such decisions anyway). The people of Oklahoma should have elected judges more concerned with not executing people who might be innocent.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago

The people of Oklahoma should have elected judges more concerned with not executing people who might be innocent.

The American judiciary seems more interested in their idea of Christian right than truth or facts.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

the appeal to the Supreme Court is not about whether it was a good idea for the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

The Supreme Court decides the scope of appeals and can ask for reargument if they think the parties are talking about the wrong issues

I think that it is in fact true that "Nothing in the Constitution compels a state court to provide a particular measure of deference to a state official’s confession of error."

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If this travesty counts as a due process of law then the phrase has lost all meaning.