Two Dissents

Charles S. Doskow, University of La Verne College of Law

Abstract

This essay discusses individual dissents by two justices of the Supreme Court in cases decided at the close of the most recent term, and comments on the individual qualities that led each to make individual comments. The dissent of Justice David Souter in Osborne, in which the majority refused to find a constitutional right to post-conviction DNA testing, urged a moderate view with respect to the creation of new rights where technology has altered traditional fact patterns. Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent in the voting rights case is striking, in that he alone on the Court would have held the 2006 extension of the Voting Rights Act in excess of Congress’ powers.