The Great Dogma Debate
In the right corner, Justice Antonin Scalia, defender of the constitution, 
keeper of SCOTUS’ moral key. In the left corner, the challenger, Professor Alan Dershowitz.
That’s right folks. Dershowitz is challenging Scalia to a Catholic throwdown – and Dershowitz isn’t even Catholic. My money is on Dershowitz.
The brouhaha started on Monday, when the Supreme Court issued its opinion suspending the execution of Troy Davis, on Georgia’s death row for allegedly killing a police offer. Since Davis’ conviction, numerous witness have recanted their statements and Davis himself has always asserted his innocence. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that those claims of innocence deserved to be heard in substance rather than just existence.
In a scathing dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Scalia essentially proclaimed that innocent or not a fair trial demands that verdict be carried out. In Troy Davis’ case, that verdict is a death sentence. To quote from the righteous man himself: “This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”
I appreciate “Justice” Scalia’s mock air quotes around the word “actually,” it adds drama to his rhetoric. While the notion of executing an innocent person is appalling, what’s worse is that this sentiment comes from a Supreme Court justice, and a Catholic one at that. The Catholic church flatly rejects the death penalty as a means of punishment unless it the most exceptional of cases. Apparently for Scalia, every case merits an exceptional rating such that death would be a Pope-approved sanction. So, leave it to a non-Catholic academic to call Scalia to the mat and challenge him to saintly showdown.
Above the Law details the challenge that Dershowitz issued to Scalia:
I hereby challenge Justice Scalia to a debate on whether Catholic doctrine permits the execution of a factually innocent person who has been tried, without constitutional flaw, but whose innocence is clearly established by new and indisputable evidence. Justice Scalia is always willing to debate issues involving religious teachings….
Although I am neither a rabbi nor a priest, I am confident that I am right and he is wrong under Catholic Doctrine. Perhaps it takes chutzpah to challenge a practicing Catholic on the teachings of his own faith, but that is a quality we share.
While I have serious doubts that Scalia would make himself available, I, for one, would buy ringside seats to this one.
The author of http://www.gabelwire.com has written an excellent article. You have made your point and there is not much to argue about. It is like the following universal truth that you can not argue with: Paranoids live longer, but they get less done. Thanks for the info.