Obama's DOJ agrees with Roberts' court decision to deny DNA access to prisoners
crossposted from Democratic Underground:
NYT editorial (June 18):
"We are also puzzled and disturbed by the Obama administration's decision to side with Alaska in this case -- continuing the Bush administration's opposition to recognizing a right to access physical evidence for post-conviction DNA testing. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/opinion/19fri1.html?_...
Glen Greenwald (Today, June 20):
"There's one important fact missing from all of that analysis: namely, this was yet another case where the Obama DOJ sided with the Bush administration and advocated the position that the conservative justices adopted. The Obama DOJ aggressively argued before the Court that convicted criminals have no constitutional right to access evidence for DNA analysis. Indeed, its decision to embrace this extreme Bush position caused much controversy and anger back in February."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/20/dna/i...
This is sad.
This is a sad day indeed.
It was Obama's DOJ who fought '...aggressively...' for this judgement. To whom can the innocent look to, now that SCOTUS has denied them their basic rights. The President?
The Innocence Project, since its establishment in 1992, has used DNA evidence to exonerate the wrongful conviction of over 230 innocent people in this country.
Many of the innocent were people of color. Many of the innocent were poor. Many of the innocent were waiting on Death Row.
Our country is so often described as a 'Nation of Laws.' Our rights were attained through the hard won battles of the ages and through the deaths of the brave.
We witnessed our rights being taken away from us during the 8 long years of Bush. We elected a President whose message was one of 'CHANGE and HOPE.'
Only we now see our rights continue to be eroded, and for Obama to go were even Bush dare not venture. Obama is proposing holding unnamed individuals indefinitely, without trial, with no legal recourse.
How could we have been so misled?
June 20, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a sad day indeed.
It was Obama's DOJ who fought '...aggressively...' for this judgement. To whom can the innocent look to, now that SCOTUS has denied them their basic rights. The President?
The Innocence Project, since its establishment in 1992, has used DNA evidence to exonerate the wrongful conviction of over 230 innocent people in this country.
Many of the innocent were people of color. Many of the innocent were poor. Many of the innocent were waiting on Death Row.
Our country is so often described as a 'Nation of Laws.' Our rights were attained through the hard won battles of the ages and through the deaths of the brave.
We witnessed our rights being taken away from us during the 8 long years of Bush. We elected a President whose message was one of 'CHANGE and HOPE.'
Only we now see our rights continue to be eroded, and for Obama to go were even Bush dare not venture. Obama is proposing holding unnamed individuals indefinitely, without trial, with no legal recourse.
How could we have been so misled?
June 20, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You wrote "We witnessed our rights being taken away from us during the 8 long years of Bush."
He was relected for a second term. The American peopl exercised their rights.
Problem was; Kerry proved to be the "Weaket Link"
June 21, 2009 6:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
it was an unfortunate decision that can't be justified. In fairness to the President himself, the DOJ decision to support the state of Alaska was made when Obama had been in office for barely a month (i.e., in February 2009), and it's hard to know whether Obama himself had time to think about it in the face of a collapsing economy and the multitude of other challenges he confronted.
I hope that next time something similar arises, the President, with more time for reflection, will make a wise and fair choice.
June 21, 2009 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
From my (admitedly limited) reading of the decision, there was sufficient precedent to rule either way. It was a decision of which precedents and which values to prioritize and then justify the reasoning to fit the outcome. Which just goes to show that taking precedents and successively stretching them to fit new cases distorts the law to an unrecognizable creature. The founding fathers would be horrified at the monstrosity that passes for a legal system in the US.
That said it comes as no surprise that Roberts sided with the state, as he has on virtually every major issue that has come before the supreme court. Just goes to show that a little empathy could make for better justices, even if it wouldn't change the overall makeup.
Interestingly, I really wonder what the DNA test would turn up. Having read the details on the case (from supporters no less!) I have to say that if there had been no DNA evidence either way I would have voted to convict. And the DNA testing already done while far from accurate did match him to a relatively small portion of the population.
June 21, 2009 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to Paul Begala, there are approx. 40 or 41 states that already allow DNA tests. The SCOTUS decision won't stop that and it won't make other states do it either, but the states could if they want to.
What is the purpose of using the word "aggressively"? Aren't lawyers supposed to do their best to win a case otherwise they would be disbarred for purposely throwing the case.
June 21, 2009 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink