So the 4th Amendment Does Have Limits

B

Bonestorm

Thrillhouse
Color me surprised at this one. The Supreme Court has ruled that a search of an automobile incident to an arrest for a minor charge (driving with a suspended license) after the defendant is secured is not reasonable unless the search is being conducted to obtain evidence to the crime for which the defendant was arrested.

Shocker.

More interesting is the makeup of the 5-4 majority: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Scalia and Thomas. I guess Thomas and Scalia have some redeeming libertarian qualities after all. Unlike the other "conservatives" those two at least occasionally cling to some semblance of intellectual honesty.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/22scotus.html?ref=us
 
Dungheap said:
Color me surprised at this one. The Supreme Court has ruled that a search of an automobile incident to an arrest for a minor charge (driving with a suspended license) after the defendant is secured is not reasonable unless the search is being conducted to obtain evidence to the crime for which the defendant was arrested.

Shocker.

More interesting is the makeup of the 5-4 majority: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Scalia and Thomas. I guess Thomas and Scalia have some redeeming libertarian qualities after all. Unlike the other "conservatives" those two at least occasionally cling to some semblance of intellectual honesty.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/22scotus.html?ref=us
Click to expand...

Good news. It would be no surprise to those who have read my earlier posts on related topics that I heartily applaud this judgment.
 
I wish there was a logic to following Stevens philosophy on the law.

In Heller, Stevens argued for adhering to his reading of US v. Miller even tho he agreed that only one side had briefed or argued in that appeal. Stare decisis, precedent, bound the Court no matter what.

In Gant, stare decisis seems decidedly less important:

"The doctrine of stare decisis is of course “essential to the respect accorded to the judgments of the Court and to the stability of the law,” but it does not compel us to follow a past decision when its rationale no longer withstands “careful analysis.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 577 (2003) ."

"The doctrine of stare decisis does not require us to approve routine constitutional violations."

I too am impressed with Scalia on this. To see Thomas in on this does not surprise me though.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I wish there was a logic to following Stevens philosophy on the law.

In Heller, Stevens argued for adhering to his reading of US v. Miller even tho he agreed that only one side had briefed or argued in that appeal. Stare decisis, precedent, bound the Court no matter what.

In Gant, stare decisis seems decidedly less important:

"The doctrine of stare decisis is of course “essential to the respect accorded to the judgments of the Court and to the stability of the law,” but it does not compel us to follow a past decision when its rationale no longer withstands “careful analysis.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 577 (2003) ."

"The doctrine of stare decisis does not require us to approve routine constitutional violations."

I too am impressed with Scalia on this. To see Thomas in on this does not surprise me though.
Click to expand...


I see your point on Stevens (not that I agree with it), but isn't the shoe on the other foot for Roberts and Alito?
 
Dungheap said:
I see your point on Stevens (not that I agree with it), but isn't the shoe on the other foot for Roberts and Alito?
Click to expand...

hard to say yet. At first, I was looking forward to seeing some rulings and opinions by Alito, considering what he'd done in the circuit bench, but so far have been seriously disappointed with him. Roberts.......not too surprised with his performance. I always expected him to be pro government on decisions and didn't want him as chief justice for that reason.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
hard to say yet. At first, I was looking forward to seeing some rulings and opinions by Alito, considering what he'd done in the circuit bench, but so far have been seriously disappointed with him. Roberts.......not too surprised with his performance. I always expected him to be pro government on decisions and didn't want him as chief justice for that reason.
Click to expand...


Alito is always pro-government in these decisions as well. I mean, when you conclude that a strip search of a 10 year old is justified when executing a search warrant there is no limit to what you would attempt to justify under the guise of the 4th Amendment.
 
Dungheap said:
Alito is always pro-government in these decisions as well. I mean, when you conclude that a strip search of a 10 year old is justified when executing a search warrant there is no limit to what you would attempt to justify under the guise of the 4th Amendment.
Click to expand...

like i said, he's been a huge disappointment. I thought he'd be a godsend for freedom and liberty after being attacked by the brady bunch as machine gun sammy.....but no such luck.
 
Excellent ruling! I notice Breyer went into the other category on this one. And its the first one that I have seen that I disagreed with Roberts.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
like i said, he's been a huge disappointment. I thought he'd be a godsend for freedom and liberty after being attacked by the brady bunch as machine gun sammy.....but no such luck.
Click to expand...


But that was a decision he made while sitting on the Third Circuit and which many of his critics pointed to as evidence of his unworthiness for nomination to the Supreme Court.

I don't remember Machine Gun Sammy (I'm not saying he wasn't called that) but I do remember Strip Search Sammy. It was based on his dissent in the case mentioned above.
 
Dungheap said:
But that was a decision he made while sitting on the Third Circuit and which many of his critics pointed to as evidence of his unworthiness for nomination to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
didn't i just say that?

Dungheap said:
I don't remember Machine Gun Sammy (I'm not saying he wasn't called that) but I do remember Strip Search Sammy. It was based on his dissent in the case mentioned above.
Click to expand...

did he rule on this case previously?
 
Dungheap said:
I'm confused.
Click to expand...

yeah, it seems we're crossing our wires.

my initial outlook on Alito was favorable because of that machine gun ruling from the 3rd circuit because it looked like he was going to be a limit on congressional commerce clause power, but he's disappointed me since he's been on the USSC.
 
frog2.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top