I don't want to interfere with the suzerainty of the Supreme Court in most matters in deciphering what the Constitution has to say about run of the mill cases.  But in the matter of some convicted criminal asking for a test to see if, indeed, he did the deed, I think he should be extended every opportunity to prove that the evidence was tainted that convicted him. The conservative majority of the Supreme Court decided that, despite the means to prove or disprove innocence is available in the form of DNA testing (which the framers of the Constitution had no idea existed) it would allow imprisonment or execution to continue.  The liberal minority disagreed with the majority and came up with some pretty good reasons to allow the testing (even with the expense paid for by the convict) to be used.  Who knows if it would prove innocence unless the testing is performed?

Proponents of "Off with his head", if they had their way, solves the problem neatly, except it ends there for testing will be useless because the convicted person who the testing proved innocent no long is alive to benefit from it.  I think that this is one of those cases which has a small difference of opinion, 5 to 4, settles forever such an important (to the individual whose life is at stake) opportunity.  The opportunity is removed and the execution or the imprisonment continues.

It is not entirely unlike the man who thinks he was stolen as a child and brought up by a family he felt to which he did not belong.  The DNA testing was performed and after much hoopla, it was discovered that he was not that child who was kidnapped.  He is still unsatisfied and millions of children who think they were adopted by parents who did not understand them are unsatisfied, too.

But, in cases like those that the majority of the Supreme Court brushed off, makes for a decision that at some future date can be reversed - but too late to help the individuals whose convictions remained in force.  The Supreme Court has, over the years, been for something and then later was against that same thing.

The Court, as a whole, can change its mind as can a President who finds that what he wanted and promised cannot be achieved right away.  Maybe down the road what we think as truth or the way things should be, will be established.

Meanwhile, our decisions about Guantanamo and immigration as well as a host of other chronic disagreements will be brought before this court which will not be changed from Conservative to Liberal or to just plain common sense - even with Mr. Obama championing such people as Ms Justice Sotomayor as new members of that august body. He will have his chance to change the court if present members retire or die.  The life-span of Conservatives is no different from Liberals.