During last week’s look at the Best of the Spherical Model
(Part I, Part II, and Part III), I left out one piece that is actually among the most re-read: Supreme Court Voting Patterns. My son Political Sphere had collected data to look at the Supreme Court’s
voting record up to the point just before the Obamacare vote. It was topical,
which is why I didn’t include it last week. But enough has come up about the
Court this week that I’m thinking it would be good to update the voting record
chart in the near future.
In the meantime, a couple of recent rulings are worth
looking at.
Monday, June 16, the Court ruled on an Arizona Voter ID case,
about whether a state can require verification of citizenship for voter
registration when federal law does not require such verification. The short
answer you’re hearing in the news is that the Court favored the federal
government’s view, and limiting states. But the more complicated, actual ruling
is that on one of five issues (the least relevant), the Court sided with the
federal government, but on the other four issues, the Court verified states’
rights—which is a good thing. J.Christian Adams, former DOJ attorney and author
of Injustice, has been working with voter integrity issues for a long time. His
assessment is an excellent summary.
The Heritage Foundation also covers the ruling.
Back on June 3rd, the Court ruled on the collection
of DNA evidence. Justice Scalia dissented from the majority—along with three of
the liberals on the Court. Nevertheless, I think as usual Scalia is right.
Here’s the scenario from the case: a man was taken into
custody for assault in Maryland in 2009.
DNA taken during his arrest for the assault became evidence in new
charges against him from a 2003 rape, because his DNA matched a rape kit kept
from that earlier case. An evildoer is caught; that should be a good thing.
Here’s the problem: the Court ruled that DNA could be taken
at the time of arrest, because it is essentially an identifier, like
fingerprints. What they could foresee was that, if a prisoner needed to be
moved, the DNA would prove that the correct person was being transported. But
that isn’t actually how ID-ing a prisoner would work. His fingerprints would
indeed be a quick and accurate identifier. Taking a fresh fingerprint and using
a fingerprint database would take no more than half an hour. But taking a DNA
sample for that purpose would never be done. The sample would need to go to a
lab, where it could take, at best, hours (and more likely weeks) to compare to
the existing record of that prisoner’s DNA. In the case in question, the DNA
wasn’t looked at until four months after arraignment.
And even then it wouldn’t be infallible. DNA results show
whether there’s a high likelihood that two DNA samples match. It’s a matter of
probabilities, not certainty. We can’t say no two humans have the same DNA.
Identical twins occur in about 11 births per thousand, and they share identical
genetics. But even identical twins have different fingerprints.
So, for greater expense, longer time, and less accuracy, why
use DNA instead of fingerprinting?
The Court seemed to agree that collecting the DNA for the
purpose of using it as a fishing expedition to tie the suspect to other crimes
was not right. The DNA, when collected for use in the case where the person is
a suspect is a reasonable gathering of evidence. But what if the suspect is
exonerated of that crime? Should his DNA be kept, and used to compare to other
crimes? Is he required to provide evidence against himself for unknown,
unsuspected crimes, on the off chance that something might be found someday? The
Court halfway said that couldn’t be the reason. But, if you think of the DNA
not as evidence, but as just an ID, like a fingerprint, then it was OK. (And then,
if it happened to be used in some other way, that wasn’t the Court’s concern.)
If one were to assume a corrupt government (just
hypothetically speaking), it would be difficult and improbable for some
official to place a political enemy’s fingerprints at a crime scene in order to
frame the person. But placing DNA at the scene could be in the form of a hair,
a fingernail, a bit of saliva left on a drinking glass. The person kind of has
to be there to leave his fingerprints, but he doesn’t necessarily have to be
there to have his DNA placed there.
Even without a corrupt government, we do have a fourth
amendment protection that is at issue. As Scalia summed it up: "Solving
unsolved crimes is a noble objective, but it occupies a lower place in the
American pantheon of noble objectives than the protection of our people from
suspicionless law-enforcement searches. The Fourth Amendment must
prevail." Yes, those amendments—they keep coming up.
Meanwhile, in a slightly related issue, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)
has just come out with a book, Why JohnRoberts Was Wrong on Obamacare. He lays out the case that the Chief
Justice changed his opinion midstream concerning Obamacare, coming up with the
tortured ruling that it was OK if it was a tax, which it was declared not to be
by federal government lawyers on days it was convenient to say that, but
declared as a tax—by the same lawyers on other days when that was convenient.
available here |
I haven’t read the book yet. From what I’ve seen covered, I
think it implies there may have been pressure on Roberts to change his opinion.
Most of us who were looking on at the time thought that was the case. There was
quite a lot of evidence, just in the way the dissent was written, as if it had been the majority opinion, that he had changed his mind. So the question we all
had was why. I think we’d all still like to know: was Justice Roberts coerced?
Were there threats to his reputation or his person or his family? Was he more
subject than we thought to political pressure or the desire to be liked in
Washington? We’d like to know, because his vulnerability to pressure, for
whatever reason, coupled with the power to determine binding law, has consequences for all of us.
Even when our justices are wrong, we want their opinions to
come from their best understanding of the Constitution, not some tortured
effort to reach a pre-desired outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment