Dr. Asten: And speaking about marginalizing dissent...

...here's Mark Karlin!

It's refreshing when someone inadvertently substantiates someone else's point of view. Usually, when I discuss an issue with someone, I try to stay on the topic at hand, up until the point the person I'm debating realizes they're losing and serves up a distraction. On a recent blog, I made the statement that the only thing I had seen from ObamaCare supporters were marginalization, demonization, and no rebuttals, and a response to that comment backed up my claim. The Supremes recently ruled that Troy Davis, convicted in the murder of an off-duty policeman, Mark MacPhail in 1989, is able to present evidence to prove his innocence. Upon finding out Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, Mark Karlin declared them guilty of murder (Should I bother noting that he called Justice Thomas a "puppet"? No, silly wabbit, liberals can't be racists!).

I'm all for allowing defendants to present new evidence that supposedly proves their innocence, but demonizing Scalia and Thomas for noting how unprecedented it is for the Supremes to allow new evidence in a court case to trigger a habeas review, is highly off the mark. Davis never says that his constitutional rights had been violated, he's only calling for evidence to be considered to help determine his innocence. Scalia, nor Thomas, ever said it was ok for the federal and state government to execute an innocent man. Besides, it isn't clear that the evidence the court had been ordered to consider will overturn Davis' conviction. The idea here is, as it is with ObamaCare and Obama's policies, to marginalize those who have legitimate questions about Troy Davis' claim. h/t: publius at Obsidian Wings

Anti-death penalty advocates are using this case to show how disparate the application of the death penalty is. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, even if the Supreme's decision didn't address the issue of the constitutionality of the death penalty. The question at the heart of the decision is whether it is constitutional for a court to conduct a new trial for a defendant who was previously convicted, yet found evidence to prove he's innocent. The only ones who are able to make that determination is the jury or the judge hearing the case. Someone else tell Alex Koppelman...

If the new evidence exonerates Davis, good for him. The justice system prevails once again, but if it doesn't, the justice system prevails once again. Because a man presents new evidence does not exonerate him automatically, so I would caution those who are making Troy Davis their cause célèbre to wait until the new case is decided...otherwise, they'll continue to look foolish.

Have a great day...