This is not a decision the Supreme Court made in 1840. This was a decision the SC made TODAY.

[demmiblue]

An all-white jury convicts a Black man of killing his white wife. Three jurors oppose interracial marriage because people should “stay with their Blood Line.” His lawyers don’t object. Jury sentences him to death. No problem, says the Supreme Court.

The prosecutor asked members of the all-white jury if they were willing to “take the risk” that a Black defendant, if found not guilty, would “ask your daughter out, or your granddaughter out.” Again, his lawyers did not object. Again, totally fine, says the Supreme Court.

Here’s the closer to the dissent from Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson. The death penalty is a stain and the American legal system should be plunged into the depths of the sea.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[chowder66]

1. Wow this is bizarre. You nailed it with the 1840 reference.

[jimfields33]

4. I think his lawyer screwed up. Why on earth would they not say anything?

Had a chance to keep them off the jury and the lawyer didn’t.

[chowder66]

12. Makes one wonder if that lawyer agree with those jurors views.

[Marthe48]

18. Not the lawyer's job to judge

just offer the best defense for their client. Or so I've heard, especially when we see horrible crimes committed, and the accused, who seems totally guilty, gets off on a technicality. It is frustrating, and the law is an ass.

[jimfields33]

23. It's the job of the lawyer to pick a decent jury.

At least object to those who find unacceptable.

[Marthe48]

24. I agree

Whoever brought this appeal might have pointed out that the accused didn't have competent or adequate counsel. That might have worked in a lower court, and got him a retrial. His original lawyers dropped the ball.

I wonder what their views are on interracial marriage? Wonder if another Thomas couple is sweating this?

[Ms. Toad]

31. That is the only issue the Supreme Court was reviewing -

Whether the attorney's conduct fell was unreasonable enough to rise to the level of constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel.

Given that courts have failed to find that counsel who slept through death penalty trials was ineffective, so long as they did not repeatedly sleep through substantial portions of the trial, this is not surprising - nor is it limited to recent courts.

Especially in death penalty cases, appellate courts and the Supreme Court are reluctant to find ineffective assistance of counsel.

[demmiblue]

2. Supreme Court rejects Black death row inmate's racial bias appeal

Three liberal justices dissent from court's decision not to hear case, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggesting that verdict may have been "tainted"

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away a Black death row inmate’s appeal that he did not receive a fair trial because several jurors had expressed opposition to interracial relationships, prompting Justice Sonia Sotomayor to suggest that the conviction may have been tainted.

The conservative majority court’s decision not to hear the case, over the dissent of Sotomayor and the two other liberal justices, leaves in place Andre Thomas’s conviction and death sentence for murdering his step-daughter in a gruesome attack her, his estranged wife, who was white, and their son.

"No jury deciding whether to recommend a death sentence should be tainted by potential racial biases that could infect its deliberation or decision, particularly where the case involved an interracial crime," Sotomayor wrote. She was joined in the dissent by Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.

It is the role of courts "to safeguard the fairness of criminal trials by ensuring that jurors do not harbor, or at the very least should put aside, racially biased sentiments," Sotomayor added.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-death-sentence-racially-prejudiced-jur-rcna51058

[Hugh_Lebowski]

3. Friggin hell (nt)

[Old Crank]

5. Roberts and Alito,

Wonder why your court has lost any shred of credibility?

[dchill]

9. They don't wonder, not really.

It's all faux.

[EndlessWire]

6. They chose not to hear this case??

I dunno, the SC is effed. Let's see if they choose to hear Donald's case.

This guy may well have killed all those people. That's not the point. The point is to make sure that any death sentence is beyond reproach, if that's possible.

This is why we should abolish the death sentence.

[Spazito]

7. Wow, 1840 indeed!

And the 6 right wing Supremes wonder why their poll numbers are in the cellar.

[onecaliberal]

8. It's all okay, we just have to be patient and wait for something something something.

[dchill]

13. Perhaps Godot.

[LymphocyteLover]

16. If you have any better ideas of what to do, we'd love to hear them

[onecaliberal]

19. Arrest the criminal for his 4,000 crimes he has committed every element of in public.

let's start there. Ask reality winner all about what to do.

[LymphocyteLover]

27. how will that help the problems with SCOTUS?

[Pas-de-Calais]

10. OMFG!!!

That is truly disgusting

[KPN]

11. This SC will be the total undoing of real democracy.

Add “undo this SC” to the list of absolute highest priorities for the Democratic Party going forward. Unfortunately, it’s a very long list. One that built up over decades of “collaboration” and “compromise” with what ultimately was and is now clearly the enemy of democracy, equal rights and fairness.

[LymphocyteLover]

15. absolutely-- this court is an unholy illegitimate outrage dominated by a death cult majority

[DemocraticPatriot]

28. ABORT This SC!

"Retroactively", if necessary...

[LymphocyteLover]

14. Unbelievably disgusting all the way around... FUCK!

[Hermit-The-Prog]

17. The Subversive 6 have rendered the Extreme Court a threat to the nation.

Roe, Roe, Roe your vote
against theocracy!
Republicans revoke your rights
and kill democracy!

THESE are the races that will determine control of the House of Representatives:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217206774

Got post-its?
Stick 'em up for a blue wave: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217078977

[ProfessorGAC]

20. His Lawyers Were Morons

How could they let that slide? How could the judge allow an answer showing clear bias as anything other than a disqualifier?
And, that leaving aside how SCOTUS could think this was ok.

[jaxexpat]

21. Is there anything like a.......

"Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART)" for changing the misdirection of the USSC? Or does the majority of this august body ascertain "DART" stands for "die and rot, Thomas"?

Just asking, would a little asteroid "nudger" be wasted on the "conservative" majority USSC? They'd, perhaps, see it as an exceptional shift in jurisprudence, a great knocking on proudly locked doors, though it be but a small shift, their fear, swept into the abyss of cruel ignorance from whence it slunk.

[DallasNE]

22. Where Was The Trial Judge While This Was Going On?

It seems to me that he should have called the defence attorney into chamber to grill him his lack of objection to this potential humorist. Indeed, how was this/these individuals even allowed in the jury pool. Indeed, this case displays the corruption in the judiciary that has caused the Court to lose the respect that Alito blew his top over. This decision will just make those cries all the louder and deservedly so.

[roamer65]

25. In Michigan, this case wouldn't exist.

We abolished the death penalty in 1847.

Yet again, another reason why Michigan doesn’t belong in a republic with Texas.

We have more in common with Ontario than Texas.

[paleotn]

26. Same in the civilized portions of the country.

[dickthegrouch]

29. Utterly illegitimate

Both the decision and the court.

[live love laugh]

30. Clarence is a POS 💩

I’d REALLY like to know what made him such a self hating scumbag.

[Ms. Toad]

32. Keep in mind that this is an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

The court was not asked to consider race bias - except in the limited context of whether the failure to question and/or object to jurors was so irresponsible as to deprive the inmate of his constitutional right to counsel.

This is not a new issue in death penalty cases - appellate courts are extremely reluctant to find/review ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Numerous Circuit Court decisions have held that an attorney does not render ineffective assistance of counsel when they sleep through trial - unless they sleep repeatedly through a substantial portion of the trial - AND - the portions slept through were so critical that the attorney's failure to be awake during those portions harmed his client.

That doesn't make it any less horrendous - BUT - this is not new or unique to this court.

[Nixie]

33. Now a warning about the Supreme Court??

This was all very evident years ago. Don’t ya know.