Court Won't Hear Siegelman, Scrushy Appeals

[no_hypocrisy]

Source: ABC NEWS

The Supreme Court will not take another look at the bribery conviction of former Ala. Gov. Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.

The high court on Monday turned away the two men's appeals. Siegelman was convicted of selling a seat on a hospital regulatory board to Scrushy in exchange for $500,000 in donations to Siegelman's 1999 campaign to establish a state lottery.

Siegelman's lawyers wanted to argue that campaign donations can't be bribes unless there's a clear agreement between the donor and the politician, and that there was no such agreement in Siegelman's case. Siegelman has been free on bond while appealing his conviction, while the courts refused to free Scrushy.

The appeals were turned away without comment.





Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-hear-siegelman-appeal-16490322

---

Governor Don Siegelman got a raw deal.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Damn.

This is a travesty.

[snooper2]

4. why, cause he got busted?

[Hissyspit]

15. You don't know what you're talking about.

[The Doctor.]

16. Still ignorant after all these years?

The details of the case make it clear that Seigelman did nothing wrong. He was targeted by Rove and Co.

You are ignorant of the details?

[snooper2]

17. Why was he found guilty? Did Rove and Co. stack the jury?

give a summary of why he is innocent and maybe I won't be so Ignorant in your mind, "doctor"

[snooper2]

22. Did the good doctor get called into the ER?

[Octafish]

23. Here you go.

Know your BFEE: Bush and His Crooks with Badges Sent an Innocent Man to Jail

[snooper2]

24. thanks, lots to read...

I thought it was a witch hunt and they went digging and digging to try to find something to hook him on and did...

[Octafish]

30. You're welcome, snooper2.

The thing about the case: Siegelman was a nightmare for the GOP -- a popular, liberal Democrat. A real problem, when there's public money to be stolen. So, no man, no problem.

[The Doctor.]

53. Ignorance cured!

Feels good, doesn't it?

Seigelman basically did nothing wrong. Rove's operatives in the DoJ simply found something they could twist into the appearance of corruption.

[snooper2]

55. Are you actually a real doctor or do you just play one on the Intertubes?

[The Doctor.]

56. ???

How is that in anyway relevant?

Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of unless it is deliberate. I myself am ignorant of a great many things. I rarely ever use the term as an insult, but you are clearly combative over this.

Don't be. You learned something.

[snooper2]

57. aren't you ever curious?

People probably think snooper2 is my handle cause I snoop LOL...

Actually it was the name of a really cool cat I had many years ago

[The Doctor.]

58. It's only truly cool if it has some Maine Coon in it.

I've yet to find a cool cat w/o some 'coon in her.

[Kelvin Mace]

18. No, because this was a political witchhunt from day one

and the entire prosecution was orchestrated by Karl Rove.

I have no patience for crooked pols, but this charge was cooked.

[L. Coyote]

49. Gov. Don Siegelman, the Roughly $3.6 Billion, ExxonMobil, and Pissing Off BIG OIL.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3070446

[patrice]

2. This Court closing a window into possible DOJ Capture? Surely, you jest!

sarcasm thingee

[OnyxCollie]

3. Obama's Supreme Court pick, Justice Kagan,

is not a fan of Don Siegelman.

Thus, the hand-wringers' fear about Supreme Court picks and the upcoming election holds little weight for me.

K&R.

[patrice]

5. Major leap in "logic" there. "John Doe picked X, ergo John Doe will always pick X." Fail.

Someone who starts with their conclusion and works backwards to "reality" suggests that one has no interest in the truth.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. If all four "liberal" judges voted to hear the case, this would have been a different story.

Apparently there weren't four votes.



A minimum of four of the nine Justices are required to grant a writ of certiorari, referred to as the "rule of four". The court denies the vast majority of petitions and thus leaves the decision of the lower court to stand without review; it takes roughly 80 to 150 cases each term. In the term that concluded in June 2009, for example, 8,241 petitions were filed, with a grant rate of approximately 1.1%.[18] Cases on the paid certiorari docket are substantially more likely to be granted than those on the in forma pauperis docket.[19] The Supreme Court is generally careful to choose only cases over which the Court has jurisdiction and which the Court considers sufficiently important, such as cases involving deep constitutional questions, to merit the use of its limited resources. See also Cert pool. While both appeals of right and cert petitions often present several alleged errors of the lower courts for appellate review, the Court normally grants review only of one or two questions presented in a certiorari petition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari

[OnyxCollie]

8. So, if we can't get the four "liberal" justices

to hear the case, what does any future Court picks matter?

[no_hypocrisy]

9. It depends.

Your premise about Elena Kagan either voting not to hear the case or recusing herself for this case is fact specific. She was the Solicitor General and may have HAD TO excuse herself, depriving the fourth vote.

That was the risk of nominating her to the Court to begin with as many of her cases as SG would revisit her on the Hight Court.

[OnyxCollie]

10. Thanks for the reply. nt

[OnyxCollie]

12. Recusal?

Why must recusal only happen for "liberal" Justices? I don't remember Justice Slappy recusing himself from the Citizen's United decision, or Bush v. Gore, even though his wife was directly affected by the outcome in both of those decisions.

[elleng]

19. She surely DID have to recuse herself, if she was Solicitor General at the time.

You are right.

[former9thward]

25. Thre is no evidence she recused herself.

If she was SG (and she wasn't during the investigation and trials in this case) the SG represents cases before the SC. This case developed long before she was SG and she would have had no role in it.

[no_hypocrisy]

31. Here's the evidence

http://www.justice-integrity.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=620%3Asupreme-court-denies-siegelman-scrushy-appeals&catid=44%3Amyblog

The court, as usual, gave no details on its vote to deny the petition. But Democratic Justice Elena Kagan, left, presumably recused herself because she had advocated Siegelman's imprisonment when she was the Obama Administration's Solicitor General in 2009. The new administration stood shoulder-to-shoulder with its Bush predecessors in continuing the frame-up and cover-up. This was part of a "look forward, not backward" mantra that President Obama articulated most famously in avoiding accountability for Bush-era torture and cover-up. But events make clear that the cover-ups obviously applied also to Bush political prosecutions. Kagan's recusal made possible a 5 to 3 Republican majority for the case (although the precise totals aren't otherwise known) on a Supreme Court increasingly divided on partisan political lines.

[former9thward]

34. I stand corrected

I didn't realize the case had reached her level at that time. But this certainly argues that she would not have provided a 'fourth' vote even if she was on the court.

[24601]

52. Interesting wording - why the "presumably" qualifier? Does that mean that we

infer that she should have recused herself but don't know if she really did?

[elleng]

33. There rarely is evidence about recusal,

especially in SC's decisions whether or not to 'hear' a case.

[former9thward]

36. Post #31 says she advocated as SG for imprisonment.

So she would have recused herself. But since that was her position she would not have been sympathetic to the case even if she participated in the vote.

[OnyxCollie]

35. The case developed before Kagan was SG,

but she already had an opinion on it.

The Prosecution of Ted Stevens & Don Siegelman
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-abrahams/the-prosecution-of-ted-st_b_395771.html

But the Department of Justice for some reason has not budged on overturning the political prosecutions of Democrats - begging the question as to whether it believes the Democrats were properly tried. Just last month Solicitor General Elena Kagan issued a brief urging the US Supreme Court to deny hearing Siegleman's appeal.

When asked why he thought Kagan filed the petition, Siegelman responded:

"The people making the decisions are the same people who have been making the decisions all along. We've changed things at the top but the people who
are doing the work, certainly doing the work on my case are the same who worked under George Bush and Karl Rove. There's no change. These people with
a vested interest in the outcome and they're going to keep fighting for the same results."

[patrice]

11. Might they matter to other similar cases, or any of the other worthy justice issues? Apparently not.

[24601]

47. Yep - it takes only 4 votes to grant cert and hear a case. Not taking it means

that at lease 6 didn't want it.

[L. Coyote]

48. It only means they picked cases they thought more important

Each Justice has to prioritize what to vote for. They cannot hear every case that may have merit, the country having outgrown the nine-person institution.

[barbtries]

7. raw deal doesn't begin to describe it.

he was railroaded, imprisoned...by a bunch of corrupt, deplorable people. it's sickening. no justice at all.

[patrice]

13. Too bad he doesn't have the kind of support that can do the "revolution" thing for him.

... and that includes me.

[asjr]

14. I wonder what those Alabama thugs got out of this.

Are they still breathing?

[elleng]

20. Yes, they're most definitely still breathing,

canary retired one year ago.

http://www.mainjustice.com/2011/05/26/leura-canary-one-of-the-last-bush-u-s-attorneys-to-retire/

[barbtries]

37. i was wondering the same thing

but if they are not still active i haven't heard about it.

[Hubert Flottz]

21. "The appeals were turned away without comment."

If they'd been republicans they would have been set free by the filthy five.

[Festivito]

27. How much $ does Clarence, er, ah, Mrs. Thomas make this time.

I can only imagine someone has money to secretly donate to her consulting firm. Website's still there under her name I bet.

No comment, no indication on who did what in a likely 5-4 decision.

Hmm. 5-4, who might they be...

[cstanleytech]

28. I wont pretend to know the details of the case so I will take your word he was wrongly convicted but

wasnt his appeal not about that but rather and I quote "Siegelman's lawyers wanted to argue that campaign donations can't be bribes unless there's a clear agreement between the donor and the politician, and that there was no such agreement in Siegelman's case."
So can someone who is a lawyer here explain to me, did the court make the correct ruling in not agreeing to hear it based on those grounds or not?

[no_hypocrisy]

29. There was no comment to explain why the Court denied certiorari.

You could be correct, but we won't know.

Maybe it was out of jurisdiction for the Court to hear the case, or if there was a valid constitutional question, the Court deferred to hear the controversy.

[librechik]

32. What Siegelman did was never a crime before he took office. Or after.

Two previous governors (Repubs) did EXACTLY the same thing (same guy appointed, even) and no mention of criminal activity. The post in question is unpaid and honorary. Where is the bribe exactly?

Why do the Repubs get away with doing the "illegal appointment" to the unpaid position, but as soon as a Dem is in office they can prosecute Sigelman? Because Karl Rove OWNS Alabama. Right now. To this day and then. He lives there. It is hunting ground. Those prosecutors, (Thanks to Obama's inaction on US Attorneys) were Rove/Bush's paid operatives. They are still there. They (apparently) cannot be removed, despite copious evidence of corruption.

Gee, I wonder why our Black President has no power in Alabama. At least he is smart enough to know that. (bitter noise)

[cstanleytech]

39. You might want to reread my post.

I did not claim it was a bribe but rather I asked if anyone who is a lawyer could tell me if the court made the correct ruling so can you do that? Assuming you are a lawyer did they make the correct ruling in this specific case based on the grounds his lawyers tried to appeal it on?

[librechik]

42. IMO, they did not rule correctly. Prosecutors claimed it was a bribe (as it were)

SCOTUS should have made them show proof what Siegelman did was a crime when he did it.
Instead, for partisan reasons, again, they let the Republican (incorrect) view stand. They are shameless.

This is an excellent (lengthy) examination of the way Don Siegelman got effed.
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2009/06/cheating-of-don-siegelman-part-iii.html

links to all 4 parts are on this page.

[cstanleytech]

43. I am confused.

Do prosecutors that have cases that go before SCOTUS have to retry them before the court? Because that kinda does sound like what you are saying which if it is then it sounds rather cumbersome.

[librechik]

44. well, for the defense the issue was that no crime was committed.

Re trying wouldn't need to happen, just a statement of the law at the time, and their brief.

[cstanleytech]

45. You said "SCOTUS should have made them show proof what Siegelman did was a crime when he did it."

but that I thought was what the first trial that led to the conviction was for yet you want them to prove it to SCOTUS as well?

Sorry for asking all the questions but the whole thing is very confusing to me but it does make me happy that I am not a lawyer because as it is now the whole things giving me a headache

[elleng]

38. Some history:

This is a 2010 story,Decision:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/siegelman-scrushy-convictions-to-be-reviewed/

2011
Alabama: Another Twist in Corruption Case
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/us/11brfs-ART-ANOTHERTWIST_BRF.html

Today:
Scrushy, Siegelman Rejected in Supreme Court Appeals.
(pretty full discussion)

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-04/scrushy-siegelman-rejected-in-supreme-court-appeals

[EFerrari]

40. What a travesty. n/t

[avaistheone1]

41. A sad day for our country. I feel very disillusioned with the Supreme Court and

our country today.

[cstanleytech]

46. Only today? I've been a member since Gore vs Bush. nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

51. It goes back much further than that.

[suffragette]

50. The injustice continues n/t

[Justitia]

54. This case still blows my mind. Gov Siegelman is a political prisoner. -eom