<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Blind Justice</title>
	<atom:link href="http://alphapatriot.com/blind-justice/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://alphapatriot.com/blind-justice/</link>
	<description>Observations of a Reformed Liberal</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Oct 2011 12:50:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Baculum King</title>
		<link>http://alphapatriot.com/blind-justice/comment-page-1/#comment-1388</link>
		<dc:creator>The Baculum King</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 May 2004 18:56:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://66.7.204.200/~alphapat/?p=1999#comment-1388</guid>
		<description>You are correct, I shouldn&#039;t have taken the quote (and citation) at face value. How has a fake quote remained &quot;active&quot; so long??
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are correct, I shouldn&#8217;t have taken the quote (and citation) at face value. How has a fake quote remained &#8220;active&#8221; so long??</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AlphaPatriot</title>
		<link>http://alphapatriot.com/blind-justice/comment-page-1/#comment-1387</link>
		<dc:creator>AlphaPatriot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2004 23:00:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://66.7.204.200/~alphapat/?p=1999#comment-1387</guid>
		<description>You quote seems to be an invention of the Left&#039;s propaganda machine. A review of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://tech.clayton.edu/mshapiro/Herrera%20v%20Collins.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;full text of the Herrera v. Collins decision&lt;/a&gt; does not show that Scalia, nor any other justice, said this. In fact, reading Scalia&#039;s concurring opinion (in which he was joined by Thomas) reveals this quote which is very much at odds with the intent of the false quote:&lt;blockquote&gt;I nonetheless join the entirety of the Court&#039;s opinion, including the final portion, ante, at 417-419 ? because there is no legal error in deciding a case by assuming, arguendo, that an asserted constitutional right exists, and because I can understand, or at least am accustomed to, the reluctance of the present Court to admit publicly that Our Perfect Constitution[fn*] lets stand any injustice, much less the execution of an innocent man who has received, though to no avail, all the process that our society has traditionally deemed adequate. With any luck, we shall avoid ever having to face this embarrassing question again, since it is improbable that evidence of innocence as convincing as today&#039;s opinion requires would fail to produce an executive pardon.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You quote seems to be an invention of the Left&#8217;s propaganda machine. A review of the <a href="http://tech.clayton.edu/mshapiro/Herrera%20v%20Collins.htm" rel="nofollow">full text of the Herrera v. Collins decision</a> does not show that Scalia, nor any other justice, said this. In fact, reading Scalia&#8217;s concurring opinion (in which he was joined by Thomas) reveals this quote which is very much at odds with the intent of the false quote:<br />
<blockquote>I nonetheless join the entirety of the Court&#8217;s opinion, including the final portion, ante, at 417-419 ? because there is no legal error in deciding a case by assuming, arguendo, that an asserted constitutional right exists, and because I can understand, or at least am accustomed to, the reluctance of the present Court to admit publicly that Our Perfect Constitution[fn*] lets stand any injustice, much less the execution of an innocent man who has received, though to no avail, all the process that our society has traditionally deemed adequate. With any luck, we shall avoid ever having to face this embarrassing question again, since it is improbable that evidence of innocence as convincing as today&#8217;s opinion requires would fail to produce an executive pardon.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Baculum King</title>
		<link>http://alphapatriot.com/blind-justice/comment-page-1/#comment-1386</link>
		<dc:creator>The Baculum King</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2004 20:22:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://66.7.204.200/~alphapat/?p=1999#comment-1386</guid>
		<description>They were just following precedent:
&quot;Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.&quot;
--U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Herrera v. Collins 506 US 390 1993
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They were just following precedent:<br />
&#8220;Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.&#8221;<br />
&#8211;U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Herrera v. Collins 506 US 390 1993</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

