User Comments

1. 

   6/18/09

   Anok

   DNA testing shouldn't have to be asked for, either. It should be a regular part of investigations, and all evidence of that nature that hasn't gone through DNA testing should be considered for what it it - circumstantial at best.
   
   Although I do agree with the court leaving it to the states, I would argue that DNA testing should already be a non issue in every state, anyway.
   
   Wait, on second thought - this is an issue that comes down to federal rights and the federal constitution, doesn't it.
   
   F 'em, make it law that DNA testing cannot be denied.

   [reply]
2. 

   6/18/09

   satijournal

   Justice isn't something that should be left for the states to decide. Everyone in the country should have equal access to justice.

   [reply]
   1. 

      6/18/09

      Anok

      Yeah, that's why I backtracked my comment up there a bit.
3. 

   6/18/09

   Anok

   They also voted against employees with regards to age discrimination today. Now, the entire burden lies on employees when bringing forth a discrimination case. Way to rule to help people, instead of corporations.
   
   Oh, wait...

   [reply]
   1. 

      6/18/09

      cooper

      exactly.
4. 

   6/18/09

   clioandme

   While I am unable to support the decisions, I do not understand how "fascism" enters into it. It seems to me that you'll render that word meaningless if you use it as a catch-all phrase for the bad guys.

   [reply]
   1. 

      6/18/09

      satijournal

      When people lose the right to defend themselves with evidence that may prove their innocence, that's a form of fascism.
   2. 

      6/19/09

      clioandme

      Not good enough. I'm not defending the Court's decision, mind you. Just find the fascist rhetoric unenlightening.
   3. 

      6/19/09

      Agit8r

      that's true mark... Klonstitutionalism is the correct term
      
      ...although the age descrimination ruling was a bit fascist
   4. 

      6/19/09

      satijournal

      Not good enough. I'm not defending the Court's decision, mind you. Just find the fascist rhetoric unenlightening.
      
      That's the problem with liberals. They always want to play nice.
   5. 

      6/19/09

      satijournal

      ... in addition, with the new Roberts/Alito court, all high profile cases have been ruled in favor of corporations or the government at the expense of ordinary citizens. That smells of fascism.
   6. 

      6/19/09

      Agit8r

      I see your point sati, this is true
5. 

   6/19/09

   Agit8r

   I heard about that. The lowest of low. A throwback to the "States Rights" arguments for arbitrary justice in the south

   [reply]
6. 

   6/19/09

   Anok

   Although I did hear the justice's reasoning for voting against it, and while some of it made sense, I don't see why they couldn't work around it in the particular case they had, and/or make a more appropriate ruling.
   
   There were issues of "slippery slope" that was brought up, such as "How long would a state be required to keep DNA evidence after a conviction to enable the prisoner's right to DNA testing after the fact"? And, some issues were brought up about how most states (47 I believe) have laws on the books that anyone convicted prior to a certain date, when the technology wasn't there, had a right to ask for new testing - but other prisoners did not have that right.
   
   Here's where I see the problem, though. AT this point in time there is no reason that DNA testing shouldn't be done from the word go. If there is some legal question about the validity of the testing, the process, or the admittitance o fthe evidence - that should be brought up in appeals by the lawyer. If the appeals case is solid, then they have no right to deny retesting or testing of DNA based evidence.
   
   That's my 2 cents for today

   [reply]
   1. 

      6/19/09

      Agit8r

      But then you couldn't pin a murder by Haplotype R1B individuals on Haplotype E3A individuals