The passivist Supreme Court

[nancylebov]

Splitting 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that an individual whose criminal conviction has become final does not have a constitutional right to gain access to evidence so that it can be subjected to DNA testing to try to prove innocence.

*****

A little more detail

Is there any place that lists all the dissenting opinions?

Answered by arashinomoui. Stevens' dissenting opinion starts on page 39. Shockingly, he thinks that what happens to actual human beings matters. I don't know how a justice with that much empathy managed to get onto the Supreme Court.

What are those five justices trying to optimize?

First link thanks to The Agitator.