Yesterday, Antonin Scalia evidently caused a 4-car accident on his way to court, possibly salivating, in his frenzy to dismiss, and/or mock the female plaintiffs in the Wal-Mart v. Dukes case on the days docket.
(I should add that Scalia was only fined $70, which does not begin to compare to what my son was recently fined ($500) when he was ticketed for being 5 miles over the speed limit, and a registration that was a day late in being re-upped--but that's another story of inequity in the case of the People v. the Elites)
But the mocking of people with lady parts was possibly minor when you consider the ruling of our right-wing Supreme Court in the case of Connick v. John Thompson, wherein, the Court ruled against John Thompson, and thus ensured that there would be no repercussions when prosecutors withhold evidence, and innocent people go to jail, and in Thompson's case, to death row for 14 long years. No damages were allowed Mr. Thompson, and simple human decency was notably absent.
A bitterly divided Supreme Court on Tuesday tossed out a jury verdict won by a New Orleans man who spent 14 years on death row and came within weeks of execution because prosecutors had hidden a blood test and other evidence that would have proven his innocence.
The 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas shielded the New Orleans district attorney's office from being held liable for the mistakes of its prosecutors. The evidence of their misconduct did not prove "deliberate indifference" on the part of then-Dist. Atty. Harry Connick Sr., Thomas said.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emphasized her disapproval by reading her dissent in the courtroom, saying the court was shielding a city and its prosecutors from "flagrant" misconduct that nearly cost an innocent man his life.
"John Thompson spent 14 years isolated on death row before the truth came to light," she said. He was innocent of the crimes that sent him to prison and prosecutors had "dishonored" their obligation to present the true facts to the jury, she said.
In the past, the high court has absolved trial prosecutors from any and all liability for the cases they bring to court. The key issue in the case of Connick vs. John Thompson was whether the district attorney could be held liable for a pattern of wrongdoing in his office and for his failure to see to it that his prosecutors followed the law.
Also...too....apparently, DAs may now be held innocent regarding any wrongdoing in their offices, and prosecutors need no longer follow the law.
H/T Kevin Drum and MrBrink
Adding………Irrelevant but of interest; the district attorney in the case, Harry Connick Sr. is the father of singer, Harry Connick Jr..