Tweet
This is one of those rare occasions when the U.S. Supreme Court gets it right. The Court has declined this uppity Negro rapist's invitation to create a brand new right just for him, called "due laws of process" or something.
From the JYT:
Justice Roberts has it exactly right. If 46 states have such laws in place, it's just his tough luck that he made the lifestyle choice to commit his crime in one of the other four. His remedy is with the legislature. He has no business asking unelected liberal activist judges to short-circuit the democratic process; only gun owners, the Boy Scouts, and Divinely hand-picked President Bush have any right to do so.
From the JYT:
Justices Reject Inmate Right to DNA Tests
By ADAM LIPSTICK
WASHINGTON — Prisoners have no constitutional right to DNA testing that might prove their innocence, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a 5-to-4 decision.
The court divided along familiar ideological lines between right-thinking conservatives and criminal-coddling liberals, with the majority emphasizing that 46 states already have laws that allow at least some prisoners to gain access to DNA evidence.
“To suddenly constitutionalize this area,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority, “would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response.”
The case before the court concerned Alaska, which has no DNA testing law. Prosecutors there have conceded that such testing could categorically establish the guilt or innocence of William G. Osborne, who was convicted in 1994 of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a prostitute in Anchorage.
In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the Constitution’s due process clause required allowing Mr. Osborne to have access to DNA evidence in his case.
* * *
“It’s unquestionable that some people in some states who are factually innocent will not get DNA testing and will languish in prison,” some America-hater said. “Some of them will die in prison.”
By ADAM LIPSTICK
WASHINGTON — Prisoners have no constitutional right to DNA testing that might prove their innocence, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a 5-to-4 decision.
The court divided along familiar ideological lines between right-thinking conservatives and criminal-coddling liberals, with the majority emphasizing that 46 states already have laws that allow at least some prisoners to gain access to DNA evidence.
“To suddenly constitutionalize this area,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority, “would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response.”
The case before the court concerned Alaska, which has no DNA testing law. Prosecutors there have conceded that such testing could categorically establish the guilt or innocence of William G. Osborne, who was convicted in 1994 of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a prostitute in Anchorage.
In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the Constitution’s due process clause required allowing Mr. Osborne to have access to DNA evidence in his case.
* * *
“It’s unquestionable that some people in some states who are factually innocent will not get DNA testing and will languish in prison,” some America-hater said. “Some of them will die in prison.”