Supreme-Court-Rulings

THIS IS OUR SUPREME COURT

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.~Edmund Burke
Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.~Edmund Burke

Books On The Supreme Court

Justice Denied

Recently, the most ludicrous decision to date was handed down by our Supreme Court. The Innocence Project took William Osborne’s appeal before this exalted court on June 18, 2009. Osborne, was convicted in 1993 by an Alaskan court for a rape he denies committing. Since 1993, he has been fighting for his right to prove his innocence through DNA testing.

In their ruling, the Supreme Court declared that state courts and legislatures should decide on DNA requests. Their final decision was a huge blunder and one, which leaves Osborne treading the same challenging waters he has for the past 16 years. Inmates should never be deprived of DNA testing when proof of his or her innocence is in question. DNA testing is a right that belongs to everyone.

In passing down their final decision (by a 5-4 ruling), they stated that, “The finality of a conviction is more important than making sure the right person was convicted.” This attitude concerning innocence should scare the hell out of everyone! In my opinion, the justice’s reasoning for this decision is a disgrace to the position they hold…

If you would like to sign a petition supporting DNA testing, follow this link.

Comments 18 comments

Nancy's Niche profile image

Nancy's Niche 6 years ago from USA Author

Thanks for your comment Billy...I'm a strong supporter of the Innocent Project because of this judicial attitude. Innocent people continue to be convicted and some have even been executed. Recently Justice Scalia, during a Q & A, made another cold blooded remark concerning innocent convictions. These judges are in a position to do some real damage to our country’s judicial system and the Constitution…

http://www.innocenceproject.org/index.php


billyaustindillon profile image

billyaustindillon 6 years ago

“The finality of a conviction is more important than making sure the right person was convicted."

That statement is outrageous - basically doesn't mean if the guy did it we just want to get the crime off the books. It is just amazing - and I see Nancy many of the readers are similarly in belief. A great hub bringing such injustices to attention. One would think in this day and age that fair justice was not just a right but at all costs - not the other way around.


Nancy's Niche profile image

Nancy's Niche 6 years ago from USA Author

Thanks Tony for your visit and comment. Unfortunately, justice in all levels of the courts here is often denied and selective. There is so much dishonesty within the ranks of our legal system. I feel that Supreme Court Justices should have term limits of five years and be selected by the people; not the president.


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 6 years ago from South Africa

“The finality of a conviction is more important than making sure the right person was convicted.” - Like Dolores I can't quite get my head around that? It's incredible. I thought there was an assumption of innocence until guilt is proven? And surely it's incredibly important not to convict the wrong person.

Thanks for this interesting Hub.

Love and peace

Tony


Nancy's Niche profile image

Nancy's Niche 7 years ago from USA Author

quicksand, Thanks for your comment and your right---"they say" is about the way our justice system and Supreme Court work. It is a sad situation but thank GOD for the legal groups who are trying to change this transgression of justice…


quicksand profile image

quicksand 7 years ago

They say the law is for the benefit of man and man is not fodder for the law. They say ... well, they only say!


Nancy's Niche profile image

Nancy's Niche 7 years ago from USA Author

This becomes more of a worry since Sotomayor was seated---big mistake! 60% of her cases that reached the Supreme Court were overturned there. I do not believe that this position should be a “life time” appointment. They should have term limits of no longer then eight years with a review and possible reappointment (or not) every two years.


mulberry1 profile image

mulberry1 7 years ago

You're right, their rationale is scary...I'm pretty sure their job is about something called, uh, let's see...oh, yeah,...justice!


Nancy's Niche profile image

Nancy's Niche 7 years ago from USA Author

Ginn, I have always held the belief that Supreme Court Judges should be on the same term limits as our president...I truly believe that “Complete control, corrupts completely!” Thanks for your comment…


Ginn Navarre profile image

Ginn Navarre 7 years ago

Judges that hold office for a life time is a disputable act, for the mind grows old as well as the body.


Nancy's Niche profile image

Nancy's Niche 7 years ago from USA Author

Delores thanks for your comment. I could not believe their idiotic reasoning either. Your right, it is all about power and position. This is why I am against lifetime appointments for any political office. In my opinion, elections should be held every two years, with term limits of eight years max...

That way, if a lousy job is being done, we can vote them out before our country and constitution are destroyed. Few realize the critical role our Supreme Court plays in the day-to-day decisions they make. Their real purpose is to UPHOLD our constitutional rights and with statements like this, they are failing us.    

 


Dolores Monet profile image

Dolores Monet 7 years ago from East Coast, United States

'The finality of the conviction is more important than making sure the right person was convicted?' That's unbelievable and sounds more like some kind of weird culture in a science fiction movie than reality. How can anybody, let alone a chief justice, say such a thing? It only shows that it's all about power.


Nancy's Niche profile image

Nancy's Niche 7 years ago from USA Author

Thanks anjalichugh for your interest and comment on this isuue. Justice denied is NEVER a good thing for any country or individual.


anjalichugh profile image

anjalichugh 7 years ago from New York

It's a blot on judiciary. Courts in US are full of such people who are waiting to be heard. It makes me wonder if such harassment is done on purpose; it looks like the purpose of law makers / executors is to create fear in the minds of common people so that they think of the consequences before indulging in any crime. I guess a balance is required here, though. Thumbs up for this hub.


Nancy's Niche profile image

Nancy's Niche 7 years ago from USA Author

Thanks Lgali and there is more justice denied then not! Your comments always welcome...


Lgali profile image

Lgali 7 years ago

very nice hub good to know some Justice Denied


Nancy's Niche profile image

Nancy's Niche 7 years ago from USA Author

born to be free, LOL--ya think. Now that was a good analogy too. I think they need to be replaced every two years; it should never have become a lifetime appointment. You know the saying, "complete power corrupts completely."

Thanks for your interest and comment....


born to be free profile image

born to be free 7 years ago

Isn't this ridiculous Nancy? I think the problem with the Supreme Court has to do with altitude. You know what happens to the oxygen supply to the brain when you climb too high!

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working