Protest over Citizens United but applicable to other decisions as well from takomabibelot at flickr.com

I do believe we’ve found the very model for the difference between Republican and Democratic Supreme Court appointees. The latter on occasion display legal competence and a least a soupçon of basic humanity:

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…

Justice Thomas described the case as a “single incident” in which mistakes were made. He said Thompson did not prove a pattern of similar violations that would justify holding the city’s government liable for the wrongdoing. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined to form the majority.

However, Thompson’s lawyers showed that at least four prosecutors knew about the hidden blood test. They also showed evidence of other, similar cases in New Orleans in which key evidence was concealed from defense lawyers.

Prosecutors, like other government officials, have a degree of immunity under long-standing precedent when they are performing their legitimate duties as prosecutors. I’m trying to fathom what legitimate duty a prosecutor has in hiding blood tests to make sure an innocent man goes to jail, let alone gets executed.

But hey, 14 years out of your life and nearly being killed for a crime the prosecutor’s office knows you probably didn’t commit so it hides evidence?

No biggie to five of our callers of balls and strikes, all Republican appointees.

That’s Republican Justice. A license to future prosecutors to commit unfettered persecutions.