Glen we need background on how common it is for a DOJ to not continue cases prosecuted by a previous administration. Otherwise this is all just hot air.

...precisely what an "umprie" is, but it doesn't strike me as a nearly harsh enough term for this band of merciless bastards.

it gives the lie to the John-Roberts-claim that judges are mere neutral "umpries."

I find this decision really, really frightening. I have not yet read it, so I can't comment on the legal reasoning (like I'm qualified to comment even after I've read it, but that's beside the point) but, Jeezuz. This is the SCOTUS, people. Scalia says the 8th (?) Amendment doesn't apply pre-conviction. And what was that quote? Something like mere guilt or innocence should not impact a duly rendered verdict of Guilty (resulting in the Death Penalty)? And now, this!?

that seem contrary to their own interests; or, as we say in literary terms, whose subject position would seem to indicate a particular political stance.

But how can Obama, who must be aware of the racial inequities of our justice/prison system, "aggressively argue[] before the Court that convicted criminals have no constitutional right to access evidence for DNA analysis"?

What will his black supporters think of this? What fear drove him to do this? Surely the political cost of doing the right thing here cannot have been huge?

Btw, Glenn, I thought you might want to know about a few typos:

lesiglature

"umpries."

acknowldgment

(who wrote the opinion) should be [who wrote the opinion]

Obama's DOJ has been nothing but a disappointment...but with the five RIAA lawyers in top spots, nothing surprises me.

It is becoming more clear that the Obama administration has no coherent world view. The individual parts have too much freedom to set policy that should be directed from the top.

Well, Mr. Holder, your execution will proceed this evening as scheduled. Why? Well, the government "tend[s] to prefer continuity in positions after changes in administration."

I would be curious if the so-called "conservative" (and now also the so-called "liberal") reasoning behind such an obvious slap in the face of all convicts is:

A) The Constitution literally contains no such remedy once a defendant is convicted; or

B) The rights of individuals are seen as secondary to the authority of the state.

Though either reason bodes ill for ordinary citizens, I think the arrogance of "B" bodes far worse for our society than the pin-headed stubborness of "A".

It's inconceivable that a person's right to clear his name would be somehow inimical to the interests of the state and, especially, somehow offensive to the courts.

the sneaking suspicion that Sotomayor would be siding with the majority opinion on this one?

It's going to be a long 3 1/2 years.

This case is an example of Obama's desire to have discretion. He believes in principles, not hard and fast rules, in many cases, thus welcomes legislative fixes here, but is more uncomfortable with rule that might tie the hands of the government. The legislative solution possibly a compromise with various exceptions etc.

The book "Keeping Faith With The Constitution" deals nicely with the umpire metaphor:

Just as baseball players and many fans know that umpires over time have interpreted the strike zone differently in response to changing aspects and contemporary understandings of the game, so too do lawyers, judges, and ordinary citizens know that the faithful application of constitutional principles to new and specific circumstances demands attention to evolving social context.

In more detail (footnote):

Officially, “[t]he Strike Zone is that area over homeplate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.” MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, OFFICIAL BASEBALL RULES (2008) (Rule 2.00). Despite its precision, the strike zone is understood to reflect a general concept—namely, the area where the batter is thought to have a fair opportunity to hit a pitched ball—whose interpretation has varied as the game has evolved. For example, when the transition from bulky outside chest protectors to compact inside vests enabled umpires to crouch lower behind the catcher, the lowered line of sight resulted in the calling of lower strikes. As pitches thrown high and inside became viewed as offensive to the batter, and as the league adopted stricter rules against intentionally hitting batters, the strike zone moved toward the outside. In addition, the evolution of norms in favor of more hitting in the game has tended to favor a smaller strike zone. For a discussion of how contemporary understandings of the game have affected interpretation of the strike zone, see Peter Gammons, Whatever Happened to the Strike Zone?, SPORTS ILLUSTRATED, Apr. 6, 1987, at 36.

http://www.acslaw.org/Keeping%20Faith.pdf

So you are giving credit to Obama for doing nothing.

What does that say about the American assumption that we have the right to meddle in other countries affairs?

PS since Obama is expanding Bush's illegal war even further into Afghanistan and Pakistan, the last thing we need is to spread it to Iran

wrote:

Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that Sotomayor would be siding with the majority opinion on this one?

I suspect not. Judge Sotomayor is most strict in interpreting her role as a judge within the system. As a member of SCOTUS, her role will be very different, and you can expect her opinions to reflect that.

Sometimes I just cannot believe what people come up with. I defy you to come up with factual support for that claim, other than his pretty speeches.

Does having principles mean saying it's OK to jail or murder the innocent? Even if only one person were wrongly imprisoned in this country, Obama's position would be dead wrong, but there are MANY.

The pic at sig. is just for you.