Actually, there is no justice

DeLay may have to stay on ballot, but did you know it is still legal for the state of Texas to execute an innocent person (which they have, you know).

Court May Revise Rule On Death Row Appeals
Washington Post

The issue before the Supreme Court, however, is not whether House is guilty, but how strong his case for innocence must be to win a new hearing in federal court.

The court has never quite said it is unconstitutional to execute an innocent person.

Yes, you read that right.

For more detail about how truly fucked up criminal law is in the US, check this article:

It's Legal to Execute a Person Who May Be Innocent

Barnabei is asking for DNA tests on the scrapings from Wisnowsky's fingernails that might prove that she scratched the real murderer in her struggle to live.

But under Virginia and U.S. law, Barnabei has no further right to argue his innocence. Virginia insists that any new evidence that might cast doubt on a guilty verdict must be submitted within 21 days of the trial. After that, the condemned person is out of luck.

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 1992 Texas case that proof of actual innocence is not grounds for a federal appeal against a guilty verdict - so long as the original trial was free of error.

In that case, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy asked Texas Assistant Attorney General Margaret Griffey: "Suppose you have a videotape which conclusively shows the person is innocent and you have a state which as a matter of policy or law, or both, simply does not hear new evidence claims in its clemency proceeding. Is there a federal constitutional violation in your view?"

Griffey: "No, you honor, there is not."

Kennedy then asked if it would be unconstitutional to execute the innocent person.

Griffey: "No, it would not be violative of the Constitution under those circumstances." This wacko Texas logic is now the law of the land.