First I agree with Glenn and also don't like the fact that Obama's DOJ was siding with Alaska against the release of DNA evidence on the Osborne case. That said, what Glenn didn't tell you was this: 1. The USSC court found that the Constitution's due process clause didn't guarantee the right of government to provide someone convicted of a crime with DNA evidence just because DNA technology could help determine one's innocence or guilt. This was a very specific interpretation of the due process clause and nothing more. 2. What Glenn also didn't report is that Obama and congressional Dems are going to work for wider use and application of DNA testing. This must mean they will try and pass a law regarding this issue to overcome the defects in the Constitution with respect to this issue. 3. The USSC ruling doesn't block convicts from seeking access to DNA evidence either. This is left up to the states. Only three states, Alaska, Massachusetts and Oklahoma don't have any provisions for DNA testing. The rules in other states vary with some very liberal and others more restrictive as to what they allow. Currently most people convicted of crimes under both state and federal law have access to DNA evidence if the defendant can make a valid claim that this evidence might clear him/her. 4. The USSC determined that it was better for Congress, the states and the state courts to decide this issue for themselves. 5. Alaska Assistant AG Kenneth Rosenstein, argued this case before the USSC against allowing for the release of this DNA evidence. [WSJ, 6.19.09, A3].

I hope this helps explain the ruling on this case better and why it isn't as bad as it seems from the information given in Glenn's piece, which rightfully was attempting to criticize the Obama Administration for again being on the wrong side of an important issue.