{"id":109409,"date":"2025-02-27T13:02:52","date_gmt":"2025-02-27T21:02:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/02\/27\/clarence-thomas-big-mad-he-cant-force-oklahoma-to-kill-richard-glossip\/"},"modified":"2025-02-27T13:02:52","modified_gmt":"2025-02-27T21:02:52","slug":"clarence-thomas-big-mad-he-cant-force-oklahoma-to-kill-richard-glossip","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/02\/27\/clarence-thomas-big-mad-he-cant-force-oklahoma-to-kill-richard-glossip\/","title":{"rendered":"Clarence Thomas Big Mad He Can\u2019t Force Oklahoma To Kill Richard Glossip"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
(Photo by Win McNamee\/Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

For the last five or so weeks, the news has been nothing but throat punch after throat punch. So, I wasn\u2019t expecting great things when the Supreme Court weighed in on the Oklahoma death row case of Richard Glossip. But the pessimism was misplaced! A majority of the Court<\/a> found the procedural anomalies in the case warranted a new trial. <\/p>\n

Glossip\u2019s case is far from typical. His execution was postponed nine times and the Republican attorney general in the state actually petitioned for a new trial. An independent, pro bono<\/em> review of the case by Reed Smith revealed<\/a> \u201csignificant evidence of government misconduct and destruction of evidence\u201d led to Glossip\u2019s 1998 conviction. And before Glossip\u2019s 2001 retrial, the review found \u201ckey physical evidence\u201d was destroyed and prosecutors knowingly allowed false testimony at trial.<\/p>\n

Most people<\/a> who\u2019ve looked at this case are pretty sure Glossip is innocent<\/a>, so the Supreme Court\u2019s decision likely stops a grave miscarriage of justice. But Clarence Thomas is pissed about it.<\/p>\n

He wrote a 44-page dissent in the case, joined by Samuel Alito because who is Tweedle Dee without Tweedle Dumb. And, you guys, he lashed out at his fellow justices in a way that reveals the man has no understanding of irony. <\/p>\n

He wrote that the majority \u201cdistorts our jurisdiction, imagines a constitutional violation where none occurred, and abandons basic principles governing the disposition of state court appeals.\u201d<\/p>\n

Thomas continued that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals\u2019 refusal to grant Glossip a new trial \u201cshould have marked the end of the road for Glossip. Instead, the Court stretches the law at every turn to rule in his favor,\u201d and that his colleagues \u201cbent the law at every turn to grant relief to Glossip.\u201d I mean, if the law has to be \u201cbent\u201d to stop the execution of an innocent man, Thomas\u2019s view of \u201cconstitutional violations\u201d is pretty corrupt.<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her<\/a> with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Mastodon @Kathryn1@mastodon.social.<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Clarence Thomas Big Mad He Can\u2019t Force Oklahoma To Kill Richard Glossip<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
(Photo by Win McNamee\/Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

For the last five or so weeks, the news has been nothing but throat punch after throat punch. So, I wasn\u2019t expecting great things when the Supreme Court weighed in on the Oklahoma death row case of Richard Glossip. But the pessimism was misplaced! A majority of the Court<\/a> found the procedural anomalies in the case warranted a new trial. <\/p>\n

Glossip\u2019s case is far from typical. His execution was postponed nine times and the Republican attorney general in the state actually petitioned for a new trial. An independent, pro bono<\/em> review of the case by Reed Smith revealed<\/a> \u201csignificant evidence of government misconduct and destruction of evidence\u201d led to Glossip\u2019s 1998 conviction. And before Glossip\u2019s 2001 retrial, the review found \u201ckey physical evidence\u201d was destroyed and prosecutors knowingly allowed false testimony at trial.<\/p>\n

Most people<\/a> who\u2019ve looked at this case are pretty sure Glossip is innocent<\/a>, so the Supreme Court\u2019s decision likely stops a grave miscarriage of justice. But Clarence Thomas is pissed about it.<\/p>\n

He wrote a 44-page dissent in the case, joined by Samuel Alito because who is Tweedle Dee without Tweedle Dumb. And, you guys, he lashed out at his fellow justices in a way that reveals the man has no understanding of irony. <\/p>\n

He wrote that the majority \u201cdistorts our jurisdiction, imagines a constitutional violation where none occurred, and abandons basic principles governing the disposition of state court appeals.\u201d<\/p>\n

Thomas continued that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals\u2019 refusal to grant Glossip a new trial \u201cshould have marked the end of the road for Glossip. Instead, the Court stretches the law at every turn to rule in his favor,\u201d and that his colleagues \u201cbent the law at every turn to grant relief to Glossip.\u201d I mean, if the law has to be \u201cbent\u201d to stop the execution of an innocent man, Thomas\u2019s view of \u201cconstitutional violations\u201d is pretty corrupt.<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her<\/a> with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Mastodon @[email\u00a0protected].<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Photo by Win McNamee\/Getty Images) For the last five or so weeks, the news has been nothing but throat punch after throat punch. So, I wasn\u2019t expecting great things when the Supreme Court weighed in on the Oklahoma death row case of Richard Glossip. But the pessimism was misplaced! A majority of the Court found […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":109397,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-109409","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/IMG_5243-1-scaled-e1623338814705-620x568-0Rn1f4.jpeg?fit=620%2C568&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109409","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=109409"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109409\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/109397"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=109409"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=109409"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=109409"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}