Within the last week or so (week of June 21 to 27, 2009) the Roberts Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that DNA can be used to prove a criminal defendant guilty, but if a convicted individual wants to appeal a conviction, a convicted felon has no legal right to use DNA evidence to prove himself innocent. The right-wing justices, including Chief Justice Roberts and Sam Elite-o, both appointed by that notorious disgrace, Ex-President George Dubya Bush, likely all voted to keep a likely innocent man behind bars, even though the convicted rapist offered to pay for the tests out of his own pocket.
Something is very wrong when a court, for ideological reasons, refuses to allow a potentially innocent man to prove he is innocent of a crime if there is a method readily available to do so. Ironically, if the very same Supreme Court (minus Roberts and Elite-o) voted to allow a recount in the 2000 Presidential election, neither Roberts or Elite-o ever would have been on the Supreme Court, because the rightful President back then would have been Al Gore. Although a lot of people I know claim they don't care about Presidential politics, it is important to weigh the decision of who to vote for carefully, otherwise you may end up with Supreme Court justices who put the Common Man last rather than first.
