Cowering Democrat 'leaders' offer NO RESISTANCE to buffonish right-wing hangman 'justice' Antonin Scalia....

Antonin Scalia is no more and no less than a proponent of the philosophy and agenda of "Divine Right of Kings," the cruel ideology of inherited wealth and power that millions of immigrants and Americans fled the "Old World" to escape.

The "Justice" Scalia is outright buffonish in his prejudices, comments, and even written opinions, yet the Democrats have so COMPLETELY ABANDONED the field against the right-wing propaganda media onslaught, that we can't even THINK of a Dem. who has sought to vocally counter the jurist's sneering, scornful attitude towards American voters and citizens who are not on the GOP 'pioneers' list of big donors and crony contractors.

Describing Scalia's political philosophy is easy: just look up the Borgia Popes and Medici Dukes. In 1529 a combined army of Emperor Charles V and the Pope besieged Florence, to overthrow the Florentine Republic on behalf of the Medici heirs, who sought to rule their city as totalitarian dictators. In seeking to curry favor with the new dictators of the former Republic, Nicolai Machiavelli wrote "The Prince," an ode to dictators, totalitarians, and ruthless authoritarian everywhere. While it would be unfair to lay all the violence and tyranny in Florence, central Italy, and in the region on the Medici Dukes, it would be remiss not to point out that the final Medici heir, Catherine de Medici, Queen of France: "So it was determined to exterminate all the Protestants and the plan was approved by the queen." This account of the St. Bartholomew's massacre of August 24, 1572, was written by an eyewitness, and later historian, De Thou, and available here:
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/mod/1572stbarts.html

The tale of the Borgia Popes is even more replete with violence, assassination, conspicuous consumption, nepotism, and treachery, including the infamous story where Cardinal Caesar Borgia, nephew to the Pope, had prisoners led into the square of St. Peters, where he shot them, one by one, using rifles handed to him while he stood on the balcony of his Vatican apartment.

The campaign and presidency of John F. Kennedy laid to rest the notion that a Catholic presidential candidate would be subservient to Rome in leading the American nation. Yet Supreme Court inJustice Antonin Scalia, in his comments, gestures, and even legal opinions, is a reversion to the cruelty, injustice, and evil violence of an era where the vast majority of citizens were subjects and serfs to cruel and wanton despots. Scalia was the author of the opinion that COUNTING VOTES in Florida would "harm" the candidacy of Texas Governor George W. Bush - a clear and unambigous case of right-wing authortarians running TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (Supreme Court) to OVERRULE STATE's RIGHTS.

Nepotism, corruption, executions, kleptocracy, orgies of sex and conspicuous consumption - "the Borgia Justice" antonin scalia is THE VERY ANTITHESIS OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY!

When the history of our era is written 100 years from now, Antonin Scalia will be a bookmark of how CLOWNISH right-wing ideology has degenerated to; and how PATHETIC, AWOL, and INCOMPETENT the Democratic Party's media machine has become in not even TRYING to rebut this clearly ghastly agenda or its buffonish caricature - photo of a smug Antonin Scalia here, sneering at the fate of INNOCENT victims EXECUTED by a cold-hearted American 'justice" system, or the will of MILLIONS of American voters, with a 500,000 vote majority in the 2000 election, overruled in once democratic America.


An innocent is executed

Fort Wayne Journal Gazette
by the editors (unsigned editorial)
Scalia
Thu, Jun. 29, 2006
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/14928752.htm

On Monday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia issued a scathing opinion insisting there has never been a single proven case in which an innocent person was executed in the past three decades. The opinion’s timing has an irony overshadowed only by its tragedy: Just the day before, the Chicago Tribune published a detailed account of what was mostly likely just such an execution.

There is no stronger argument against the death penalty than the fact that in an imperfect justice system, there is too much of a chance of the ultimate mistake being made, that someone could wrongly be executed.

Lacking incontrovertible DNA or other physical evidence, it cannot be proved beyond a scintilla of doubt that the state of Texas wrongfully put Carlos De Luna to death in 1989. But all evidence indicates another man, Carlos Hernandez, killed a convenience store clerk, Wanda Lopez, six years earlier. De Luna had always said he was the victim of mistaken identity and had even named Hernandez as the killer.

“Ending years of silence,” the Tribune reported Sunday, “Hernandez’s relatives and friends recounted how the violent felon repeatedly bragged that De Luna went to death row for a murder Hernandez committed.

“The newspaper investigation, involving interviews with dozens of people and a review of thousands of pages of court records, shows the case was compromised by shaky eyewitness identification, sloppy police work and a failure to thoroughly pursue Hernandez as a possible suspect.”

In a case involving Kansas’ death penalty, Supreme Court Justice David Souter laid out the argument that too many people have been wrongfully sentenced to death. The court upheld Kansas’ law in a 5-4 ruling, despite its unacceptable provision that if aggravating and mitigating circumstances are equal, they cancel each other out, and the defendant is sentenced to death. “A law that requires execution when the case for aggravation has failed to convince the sentencing jury is morally absurd, and the Court’s holding that the Constitution tolerates this moral irrationality defies decades of precedent aimed at eliminating freakish capital sentencing in the United States,” Souter wrote.

Souter’s opinion so incensed Scalia that the conservative justice wasn’t satisfied with Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion and felt compelled to write his own, specifically to rebut Souter. After complaining that Souter’s opinion was inappropriate for its denunciation of the death penalty as it is now carried out, Scalia launched into a passionate defense of the state-sanctioned killing, a practice most other nations have rejected as barbaric.

“There exists in some parts of the world sanctimonious criticism of America’s death penalty, as somehow unworthy of a civilized society. (I say sanctimonious, because most of the countries to which these finger-waggers belong had the death penalty themselves until recently – and indeed, many of them would still have it if the democratic will prevailed),” Scalia wrote. “It should be noted at the outset that the dissent does not discuss a single case – not one – in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent’s name would be shouted from the rooftops by the abolition lobby.”

Justice Scalia and other enthusiastic death penalty proponents should listen: That is the name of Carlos De Luna being shouted, and it isn’t just coming from lobbyists, it is coming from the voices of simple Americans who object to their government killing people in their name.