Ed Leafe wrote: > Supreme Court Denies DNA Evidence To Potentially Innocent Man > > http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/06/18/scotus-dna/ > ( -or- http://bit.ly/eDCMT ) > > Imagine that: evidence exists that could either exonerate an innocent > man, or verify a guilty man's conviction, but Chief Justice John > Roberts because it might risk "overthrowing the established system of > justice". > > Think about that: not rocking the boat is more important than freeing > an innocent man. > > The damage of the Bush administration continues to mount...
Hi Ed! The decision is dumb, but to blame Bush for it as though he could have foreseen every decision the court might make is not logical, and you are the god of logic. Were all 5 of the negative votes even Bush appointees? Seems to me he only nominated two members of the court, but you, of course, could know something about this that I don't know. The article doesn't say. What would Bork have done? Maybe he would have voted for the test, allowing it to go forward. If he would have, but didn't get the chance, do we blame the Ds who derailed his confirmation for the court's decision? -- Regards, Pete http://pete-theisen.com/ http://elect-pete-theisen.com/ _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
