There is no such thing as “strict constructionalism” since such a strategy would basically ignore 230 some-odd years worth of legal evolution. The Constitution is a basic framework under which our legal system operates and adapts over time.

The end goal of our legal system is JUSTICE. Always has been, always will be. Any process or doctrine that exists only exists for the purpose of producing a just and correct outcome.

If not, we might as well abolish the Appellate, District, and Supreme Courts since they would in essence be obsolete.

“Strict constructionsim”, what a joke.

They’re having serious financial troubles. I was their Policy Director until July 31 when I and other staff were let go because a Madoff-invested foundation reneged on its grants. Individual donations are way down, too, but they’re still pursuing cases and doing good work, including a current project led by their legal director, Jeff Blackburn, and a team of Texas Tech law students to vet every conviction for inmates currently locked up in TDCJ on arson charges (more than 800, I’m told) to identify those based on testimony espousing outdated forensic theories.

You seem keenly interested in this subject and, if so, supporting this Texas-based innocence group would be a way to get a lot of philanthropic bang for the buck. They’re doing some amazing work on a shoestring, I can personally attest.

And of course, I often cover Texas prosecutorial misconduct issues at http://www.gritsforbreakfast.org. As a Mav’s fan who’s focused on these issues, I’m pleased as punch to learn that this is an area of interest for you; it has been for me, as well, dating all the way back to the “Tulia” drug stings (another of Blackburn’s cases, fwiw). Best!

Here it is. It’s not too late.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Scalia-opin-Davis.pdf

The Davis review for innocence have been extensive, if not unprecedented, prior to the Supreme Court decisison.

Troy Davis: Both sides need to be told
Dudley Sharp, contact info below

Anyone interested in justice will demand a fair, thorough look at both sides of this or any case. Here is the side that the pro Troy Davis faction is, intentionally, not presenting.

(1) Davis v Georgia, Georgia Supreme Court, 3/17/08
Full ruling http://www.gasupreme.us/pdf/s07a1758.pdf
Summary http://www.gasupreme.us/op_summaries/mar_17.pdf

” . . . the majority finds that ‘most of the witnesses to the crime who have allegedly recanted have merely stated that they now do not feel able to identify the shooter.’ “One of the affidavits ‘might actually be read so as to confirm trial testimony that Davis was the shooter.’ ”

The murder occurred in 1989.

(2) “THE PAROLE BOARD’S CONSIDERATION OF THE TROY ANTHONY DAVIS CASE” , 9/22/08, http://www.pap.state.ga.us/opencms/opencms/

“After an exhaustive review of all available information regarding the Troy Davis case and after considering all possible reasons for granting clemency, the Board has determined that clemency is not warranted.”

“The Board has now spent more than a year studying and considering this case. As a part of its proceedings, the Board gave Davisâ�� attorneys an opportunity to present every witness they desired to support their allegation that there is doubt as to Davisâ�� guilt. The Board heard each of these witnesses and questioned them closely. In addition, the Board has studied the voluminous trial transcript, the police investigation report and the initial statements of all witnesses. The Board has also had certain physical evidence retested and Davis interviewed.”

(3) A detailed review of the extraordinary consideration that Davis was given for all of his claims,
by Chatham County District Attorney Spencer Lawton http://tinyurl.com/46c73l

Troy Davis’ claims are undermined, revealing the dishonesty of the Davis advocates . Look, particularly, at pages 4-7, which show the reasoned, thoughtful and generous reviews of Davis’ claims, as well a how despicable the one sided cynical pro Troy Davis effort is.

(4) Officer Mark Allen MacPhail: The family of murdered Officer MacPhail fully believes that Troy Davis murdered their loved one and that the evidence is supportive of that opinion. http://www.markallenmacphail.com/

Not simply an emotional and understandable plea for justice, but a detailed factual review of the case.

(5) “Death and Dying”, by Cliff Green, LIKE THE DEW, 7/22/09,
http://likethedew.com/2009/07/22/death-and-dying/

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas

Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS, VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O’Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.

A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.

As well as her entire concurrence at

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328.ZC.html

“Ultimately, two things about this case are clear. First is what the Court does not hold.

Nowhere does the Court state that the Constitution permits the execution of an actually innocent person. Instead, the Court assumes for the sake of argument that a truly persuasive demonstration of actual innocence would render any such execution unconstitutional and that federal habeas relief would be warranted if no state avenue were open to process the claim.

Second is what petitioner has not demonstrated. Petitioner has failed to make a persuasive showing of actual innocence. Not one judge–no state court judge, not the District Court Judge, none of the three Judges of the Court of Appeals, and none of the Justices of this Court–has expressed doubt about petitioner’s guilt.

Accordingly, the Court has no reason to pass on, and appropriately reserves, the question whether federal courts may entertain convincing claims of actual innocence. That difficult question remains open.

If the Constitution’s guarantees of fair procedure and the safeguards of clemency and pardon fulfill their historical mission, it may never require resolution at all.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-18/scalias-catholic-betrayal/

Not only did Scalia betray his Catholic roots, he also should resign by his own definition. Scalia pretty much says a person who is found guilty in a fair trial, that is now 100% innocent, should still be exocuted.

The example given is that if I am convicted in a fair trail of killing my wife, and show up at the supreme court with her clearly not dead and standing next to me, Scalia would still say I should be executed.