Monday, October 31, 2005

Alito Finito

Here's some easy-to-absorb information on Alito. RealPlayer file; go here for other options.

Here are three groups you can donate to in order to fight this ridiculously far-right nomination:

1. NARAL

2. NOW

3. Planned Parenthood

There's obviously much more at stake than abortion rights with Alito, so feel free to give to whichever group; these guys mobilized quickest.

Spread the e-mails around. This will take money, and lots of it, to counter pressure by far-right religious organizations on senators.

Contact Judiciary Committee members here.

Contact the Judiciary Committee as a whole:

CONTACT INFORMATION:

United States Senate
Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Phone: (202) 224-5225
Fax: (202) 224-9102

Contact your own state's senators using the zip finder here.

All of the above links, along with an interactive banner with a zip finder you can use to find your senators, is available on our blog at the upper-right under "Links: Oppose Alito." (If you use Firefox, you'll see that in the upper right; if you use IE, you'll have to scroll down to beneath the posts to see the links.)

This is it; you sit on the sidelines, you live with the consequences of not having acted when you should have.

35 Thoughts:

Blogger Pelty said...

Yes, why worry about whether or not the candidate has the qualifications for the position? Let's all throw our hands up in the air, scream "My body, my choice", and reflexively oppose the nomination because that is what good Democratic lemmings like yourselves do (the irony is that you look almost exactly like GOP lemmings). Never mind that you would have had nothing but good things to say had another RBG-type been nominated. Why? Not because of capability but because of ideology. Ideology is great; I am pleased that Alito is a conservative, but I am more pleased that he has demonstrated capabilities in the field of jurisprudence. I found the nomination of RBG to be repugnant on a personal level, but did not "protest" it because I believed that Clinton had the right to appoint whom he wanted to the bench and, barring any glaring deficiencies, felt that she deserved to be elevated to the position.

Monday, October 31, 2005 1:10:00 PM  
Blogger Pelty said...

BTW, I will be AFK for the rest of the day, so any response will not be seen anytime soon...

Monday, October 31, 2005 1:11:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Pelty:

My reaction is based on what I know about Alito, who has come up before in discussions about USSC nominees.

I don't need a Scalia-lite; and I have a strong interst in protecting not only abortion rights, but the right to privacy in general, and civil rights.

Ideology matters -- because it's not a parlor game. It affects real human beings.

This is not a "reflexive" opposition; I don't care how many Ivy League degrees this guy has or how "nice" he is -- or how well-practiced and -packaged his "introduction" to the US public was. I care about the future of the Court, and this guy is not going to help.

"Qualifications" do not equal "anyone with a good rep at the ABA and Ivy League degrees." Almost anyone but Thomas would get on in that case. You know, I know, and the whole country knows that legal philosophy is what matters. Only an idiot would nominate someone like Miers or Thomas -- people who lacked the qualifications on the face of it.

So, please, drop the pretense that this isn't about Court decisions that will affect all of our lives. We make those decisions based on our beliefs, not on some blinkered view of a resume -- ie, can this person write a brief, is s/he smart, etc.

And read the Constitution: presidents don't get a free choice. There's this little thing called "advise and consent." Consent is not automatic, despite what those on the right might think (or want). You should have fought RBG through your reps and other orgs; your mistake. I don't plan to make the same one.

We don't (yet) have a king. Please don't try to tell me your "strict constructionist"! LOL

Monday, October 31, 2005 1:21:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Also, what is "AFK"?

If you think that Bush, after getting hammered by his base and pulling Miers, didn't pass Alito through a series of so-called "litmus tests," you're kidding yourself.

We know what Bush wants. I know what movement "conservatives" want. I know what I and other progressives, and centrists, want. Alito ain't it, no matter how well he writes, speaks, or how lovely his 91-year-old mother is. PR is BS; what matters is what is this guy likely to do once in the divided Court. That's what matters, to me, at least.

Monday, October 31, 2005 1:29:00 PM  
Blogger pawlr said...

Doug, AFK = Away From Keyboard

Pelty - feel free to characterize our activism any way you please, but body spasming and screaming are not what's going on here. Claiming it is only weakens your argument.

Don't kid yourself. Ideology plays a role in whether a nominee deserves our support or not, just as it did with Miers. Radical conservatives put the kibosh on Miers, precisely because of ideological reasons.

Miers was just too much of a questionmark ideologically - that's why she got Borked by her own party. The competence thing, although also true - was not the main factor for most conservative ideologues.

Monday, October 31, 2005 1:52:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Frankly, one thing that also turns me off on a number of levels is the near-identical nature of Alito's post-nomination-announcement speech and that of Roberts.

Oooooo...I'm sooooo impressed with the USSC and the architecture of its hallowed halls! Puh-leeze. Who can possibly be impressed by any of this, and what kind of judge would stoop to this kind of transparent PR crap?

Monday, October 31, 2005 2:02:00 PM  
Blogger Demotiki said...

Pelty,

You really should have complained if you didn't like RBG, after all, your party was pretty strong in Congress at that point.

I am surprised to hear a "strict construtionist" wanting to throw out the Constitution when it's time to appoint Supreme Court Justices. The co-equal responsibilities of the Senate and Executive are not only outlined in the Constitution, they are discussed at great length in the Federalist papers. Those of us who love our country go to the trouble of actually learning about the Constitution and don't parrot GOP talking points that a sitting president has the right to an "up or down vote" on whoever he appoints.

Monday, October 31, 2005 2:35:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

More info on Alito from People for the American Way, another great org.

Monday, October 31, 2005 2:35:00 PM  
Blogger pawlr said...

Pelty - I'd be particularly interested in your opinion of Alito's dissent in Doe v. Groody, in which he supports giving police officers the right to conduct non-protective strip searches of a man's wife and 10-year old daughter.

Alito's dissent turns on what he calls a "commonsense and realistic" reading of the warrant which he claimed allowed officers to search all persons in the house, as well as the premises. I fail to see how a "commonsense reading" of the warrant would include 10-year old girls as "persons therein" when "persons" should, using said commonsense, typically be applied to those people present in the house that would be purchasing the methamphetamine, not a 10-year old.

But I'd be interested in your opinion on that.

Monday, October 31, 2005 3:29:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Halloween is Pelting Pelty Day! LOL.

Monday, October 31, 2005 3:58:00 PM  
Blogger A.T. said...

2 quick points:

"I am surprised to hear a "strict construtionist" wanting to throw out the Constitution when it's time to appoint Supreme Court Justices. The co-equal responsibilities of the Senate and Executive are not only outlined in the Constitution, they are discussed at great length in the Federalist papers. Those of us who love our country go to the trouble of actually learning about the Constitution and don't parrot GOP talking points that a sitting president has the right to an "up or down vote" on whoever he appoints. "

Well, a reasonable question is: To what degree is the Senate fulfilling its role to 'consent' if a vote by the full body is prevented? Let the Senate do its duty to consent, right? If not, why not? If the Senate proves incapable of enacting its own process for providing consent, something would seem to be clearly wrong. Indeed, it would seem to be an utter failure on the part of the Senate, would it not?

Why is it problematic for us to insist that the Senate do its Constitutional duty? This seems to be a very odd criticism of the Conservative frustration with the Senate's recent history with judicial confirmations.

I haven't read the text of Alito's dissent in the case of the 10 year old. However, insofar as it is consistent with drug house tactics, it is not uncommon for drug dealers to - when expecting a police raid - hide their narcotics in/on whatever is least likely to be checked. If that's a 10 year old girl, so be it.

Alito apparently interpreted the warrant to clearly include all persons, regardless of age and gender, and - whether or not he thought the actions particularly prudent - he thought that the warrant's clarity on this matter was exculpatory and ought to preclude the officers from the civil suit that was brought against them. And insofar as that warrant was indeed clear, this seems absolutely right. Blame the granting magistrate, if you must blame someone other than the drughouse operator, but why the officers? Makes no sense, unless one values emotion above law.

No one likes the thought of a 10 year old being strip searched. [As an aside, I do wonder whether or not the term "strip search" is accurate to what was performed via the warrant, as all searches on persons in the field that I ever witnessed or executed were far less intrusive than what is typically thought of as a "strip search."] When kids are brought into crimes, it is always tragic. I suspect Alito was simply trying to avoid the officers unfairly paying the price for the unfortunate reality to which they were called upon to respond.

How does that somehow show poorly on Alito?

Monday, October 31, 2005 4:25:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

All right, we got an old-fashioned Thornblog/Cyberpols dust-up going! LOL.

Seriously, Allen, check out the PDF you can find in my commented link above. "The Record of Samuel Alito: A Preliminary Review" by People for the American Way. Not that it'll change your mind -- I imagine you're doing a little dance over Alito -- but why not read 24 pages?

Also: as far as I know, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the Senate minority has had the ability to filibuster. That's a huge tradition, and progressives had to find a way around it during the civil rights movement(s). No crying in baseball -- I thought conservatives cared about minority rights?

Also, again, as far as I know, and please correct me, the Judicial Committee has always been the gatekeeper on judicial appointments. So, if you die there, you're dead. Those folks are, supposedly, the most interested and most able judges of judges. Again, that's how we play baseball; them's the rules. For those of you who were rightly annoyed at Democrats who were pissed off that Gore won the national popular vote but lost the EC, well, that's the system, good or bad. (I happen to think that Gore won the popular vote in FL, too, and thus the EC, but that's another story).

Feel free -- I encourage you, actually -- to post analogous reviews from sources we wouldn't likely read...Federalist Society...John Birch...you know, whatever. ;) (That's a joke, that Birch one.)

Monday, October 31, 2005 4:35:00 PM  
Blogger A.T. said...

Right, re the Senate and consent, you're presenting the expected counterargument to my questions, and they have merit, no doubt. Are the current Senate rules and processes those that enable the Senate to fulfill its Constitutional duty most effectively? That's debateable for sure. But you've got a fair counterargument here.

I do think Pelty's point about ideology versus qualifications/approach/character are the crux of the matter. With Miers, you saw a lot of people on the Right who are more concerned about abortion than anything else AND who were confident of Miers' future votes against the RvW precedent, still working AGAINST her confirmation due to her lack of qualifications and demonstrated conviction to constitutionality. I think that speaks volumes of the Conservative Movement, personally.

Re the 24 pages, I think I'll pass for now. If you've read it, though, I'd be interested in how you think my response to the strip search matter is lacking. No offense, but you kind of just said "go read the brief" without addressing my responsive argument to your accusations about Alito's fitness as demonstrated by this case. That seems kind of lacking to me.

Monday, October 31, 2005 4:51:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Paul's the expert on the strip search -- hadn't heard about it till today, so I don't know about it...haven't looked into it.

Been too busy mobilizing the libocrat hordes (rather successfully -- high-school and college and other friends)...

Monday, October 31, 2005 7:47:00 PM  
Blogger pawlr said...

Pelty - "Strip search" in this case is an officer completely denuding both a 10-year old and her mother in a separate room (by a female officer, if that consoles you at all).

"Touching" was also involved in the facts of the case but its unclear if this meant exposing the anus by spreading the buttcheeks of both mother and daughter. This is the only form of "touching" which would make sense in trying to find contraband on a naked person.

Make of it what you will..

Tuesday, November 01, 2005 10:11:00 AM  
Blogger pawlr said...

Spreading the buttcheeks or perhaps the vulva in an attempt to locate contraband in the vagina of both mother and daughter. Sorry, left that one out.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005 10:12:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Paul, do the cops have to get the husband's/father's consent for that kind of search, according to Alito, or is that just in the case of abortion?

I take it all cyberpollers are forwarding this blogpost to everyone they know, and encouraging folks to do the same. It's amazing how many people want to do something, but won't unless you give it to 'em on a silver platter.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005 10:47:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

By the way, I think this "debate" on Alito won't be much of one, as I don't think the right and left differ on the facts of Alito's career and philosophy.

It's just that one side will be happy and the other horrified.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005 10:48:00 AM  
Blogger pawlr said...

I think its important, however, for so-called "conservatives" to be confronted with the practical application of their ideology in the real world. Who knows, it might actually change some minds?

Tuesday, November 01, 2005 10:52:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

I agree, Paul.

But what about the consent issue I raised?

;)

Tuesday, November 01, 2005 10:53:00 AM  
Blogger A.T. said...

Pawl,

Thanks for the clarification. That is indeed a horrible thought - a 10 year old child undergoing that. You've addressed that which I could not - the "Aside" in my response - but no one has yet addressed the actual questions I posed. I'll resubmit the pertinent questions...

"... insofar as it is consistent with drug house tactics, it is not uncommon for drug dealers to - when expecting a police raid - hide their narcotics in/on whatever is least likely to be checked. If that's a 10 year old girl, so be it.

"Alito apparently interpreted the warrant to clearly include all persons, regardless of age and gender, and - whether or not he thought the actions particularly prudent - he thought that the warrant's clarity on this matter was exculpatory and ought to preclude the officers from the civil suit that was brought against them. And insofar as that warrant was indeed clear, this seems absolutely right. Blame the granting magistrate, if you must blame someone other than the drughouse operator, but why the officers? Makes no sense, unless one values emotion above law.

"No one likes the thought of a 10 year old being strip searched. ... When kids are brought into crimes, it is always tragic. I suspect Alito was simply trying to avoid the officers unfairly paying the price for the unfortunate reality to which they were called upon to respond.

"How does that somehow show poorly on Alito?

Seriously, as far as being part of the "reality based community," as you guys claim, if the reality is that current drug laws declare narcotics dealing felonious (your convictions about drug legalization, then, being irrelevant in deeming Alito's actions), and dealers, then, despicably hide such contraband on the bodies of children in their control, ought police be precluded from sensitively attempting to obtain that illegal material, evidence of serious felonies? If not, then aren't we ensuring that this will become the preferred tactic, thus endangering even more children?

I mean, look, this is awful - the use of children in narcotics dealing. But who is doing it? The criminals. I guarantee you that the police HATE having to search a child - all the officers I knew had immense sensitivities toward children. You seem to insinuate that the police were barbarians here, for goodness sakes. I assure that the only thing worse than reading about this search is having to perform it.

Secondly, regardless of your answers to the above questions, if the warrant's verbiage was such that it gave such latitude as to perform the intrusive search (i.e., it was legal), then why should the police officers be subjected to civil lawsuits? What is your argument for that?

Tuesday, November 01, 2005 11:31:00 AM  
Blogger pawlr said...

Allen - with regards to your points:

A main problem is that people in the U.S. are "innocent until proven guilty". You refer to the accused as "drug dealers" or "criminals" in as if they're accused people who've already been convicted. There should be limits to the extension of the power of the state to invade the privacy of innocent people. You may disagree but the law is pretty clear on this.

Also the fact that "some drug dealers" perform an evil practice doesn't mean its legitimate for officers to assume that ANY suspect is performing it. In a case like this, protecting the privacy of innocent people far outweighs the social good obtained by catching those criminals who do hide drugs on their children.

I'm going to get back to you on what I think is your more valid defense of Alito's dissent - that the officers should bear the cost of the magistrate's error.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005 12:21:00 PM  
Blogger pawlr said...

Sorry, meant to say "should not" bear the cost of the magistrate's error.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005 12:21:00 PM  
Blogger A.T. said...

Pawl,

You're way off on this one, my friend. This is not an investigative stop-and-search or any other kind of warrantless search. This is a SEARCH WARRANT execution, via a search warrant provided by a judge or magistrate, which specifically addressed and enabled searching individual persons on the premises. A SEARCH WARRANT enables a the search, regardless of whether or not an arrest is made. In fact, it is often the vehicle that turns up the necessary evidence to enable an arrest (or indictment).

You can't possibly make this a "search and seizure" issue. It is not that. This is a legal search warrant execution.

Now, you may think that the law does not properly restrict searches. If that's the case, by all means, work to change the law. But that is - if we are to take a "reality-based" view of this issue - the law as it now stands.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005 2:48:00 PM  
Blogger pawlr said...

The distinction is immaterial. You continue to refer to the plaintiffs in this case as "drug dealers" when at the time the search warrant document was executed. Or do you mean to assume that search warrants are verdicts? Perhaps I'm missing something here, but probable cause is not conviction, sorry.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005 3:02:00 PM  
Blogger A.T. said...

OK, my "drug dealer" statements - when broken down to their literal core - would be considered prejudicial in a court of law. If you forget the semantic matter and understand these people to be neither arrested nor convicted (as I did mention), then - regardless of whether or not there is probable cause to arrest the individuals - if probable cause exists for obtaining a search warrant (sometimes easier to establish than PC for a specific individual having taken illegal action), as apparently did in this instance, then obtaining and executing the search warrant is wholly appropriate, and wholly in line with Constitutional protection against improper search and seizure.

At any rate, you've said that you don't think officers ought to be able to search children (again, an action that I - and the law enforcement community to be sure - consider a tragic necessity), in answering my question as to what we ought to do in response to this question. I understand the sentimentality, and - as a parent of children I love dearly and whose pain I feel far worse than my own - I identify with. However, I do think that in the realm of reality, precluding officers from such action would make that practice - stashing narcotics on children in the home - would become the preferred practice, if it isn't already.

That said, you and I can disagree on this matter, and that's fine. Again, I share your angst at the thought of kids going through something that's unavoidably degrading and not their own fault.

But the law says this practice is okay for now. So the crux of the matter is whether or not Alito is deserving of the ridicule you and the Left in general is reflexively casting upon him for upholding the law, by stating that the warrant shielded the officers, or whether he should have acted upon his sentiment and exposed the officers to lawsuit for legally carrying out their duties.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005 5:00:00 PM  
Blogger Jamie Dawn said...

Alito is to liberals as Ginsberg is to conservatives.
Ginsberg was confirmed without much ado. Let's see how the Dems handle themselves with Alito, then let's compare. It'll be fun!
Bush is the prez. He gets to pick who he wants, and as long as the pic is highly intelligent and well qualified there's no legitimate beef. Bush is not required to nominate an O'Connor clone just to keep the court "balanced."
Clintons pics were made to clearly move the court to left of center. Bush's pic will move it right of center.
That's the way it is, and it will be that way for presidents to come.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005 5:29:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

For all you supposed "strict constructionist/constitutionalists" out there, here's something to strictly construct from the Constitution:

From Article II: Section 2:

"He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Bolding mine.

That's about the size of it. If you gave Clinton a free pass on Ginsburg, that's too bad. It's also the case that there wasn't much of a fight because her appointment wasn't seen as tipping the balance of the Court. And it didn't. Had it, and you would have seen more of a fight.

Alito will tip the balance of the Court, and Democrats and allied orgs will be fighting Republicans and allied orgs. That's how our system works.

And please don't whine about "overturning an election" -- this from the side (if not you all) that actually did try to overturn two presidential elections with a pointless witch hunt of Clinton...while Bin Laden made his plans. Don't even go there -- you won't get much traction with the non-hardcore supporters of the neotheocon Bushites.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005 7:12:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

In fact, letting Bush "have his pick" overturns the elections of any Senator who might not want to support this pick, reflecting the will of his or her constituency, which directly elected him or her.

Again, I refer you "strict constructionists" to the actual and unambiguous language of the Constitution.

Shall we now discuss war powers?

Wednesday, November 02, 2005 7:14:00 PM  
Blogger A.T. said...

Just so I know: Does the sudden silence on the unfortunate strip search mean that you agree that your criticism of Alito, in this regard, was a knee jerk acceptance of Dem talking points, and was - in fact - misguided? And, dare I say, wrong?

Wednesday, November 02, 2005 8:55:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Hey, Allen:

I haven't said anything about the strip search, but what I read, both here and on other sites about it, it does not seem OK.

I don't regurgitate talking points; if I get an e-mail from, say, moveon, I check out what they claim.

I saw the article on BBC about the levees in NOLA. Did I buy it wholesale? No, I went to ASCE myself and downloaded the actual report and 11/2 testimony and read it myself. I don't trust any reporter to do his or her job, so I tend not to rely on them.

My opinion on strip search: way over the top. Not in the warrant, according to what I read = no just, probably cause = not OK = illegal search and seizure = no guaranteed immunity. That it had to do with drugs is immaterial. Civil rights, man.

Here's the deal, as far as I know. Wife and daughter not mentioned in the warrant. District Court upheld invasion of privacy. Third circuit upheld. Then:

"Alito dissented, arguing that the warrant could be read to authorize a search on anyone on the premises and that 'even if the warrant did not contain such authorization, a reasonable police officer could certainly have read the warrant as doing so, adn therefore the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity.'" Doe v Groody, 361 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2004), cert. denied 125 S. Ct. 111 (2004), Id. at 244.

If anyone can find the search warrant, by all means, post it here. On the face of it, every judge BUT Alito agreed with the Does. Alito looked for a way, and gave an opinion, that gave the greatest latitude to the police and the least scope to privacy.

Sure, maybe Alito is correct. That he has a pattern of interpreting privacy cases in the above fashion, and that a whole lot of other judges disagreed with him, makes me rather doubt that, and not because moveon told me so.

Thursday, November 03, 2005 7:56:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Oh, and on magistrate vs. cops -- look, you don't have the proper warrant, go back and get the proper warrant from the magistrate. You don't shove your fingers into a 10-year-old's vagina on a "hunch" or excessively broad reading of the warrant.

Yes, law enforcement is hard. They should do their jobs right. Better for some drugs to be hiding unfound in some girl's colon than to extend searches to, essentially, a cop's discretion in any case. Too much power in their hands, I say.

But I'm just an old-fashioned left-libertarian.

Thursday, November 03, 2005 9:38:00 AM  
Blogger A.T. said...

OK, there's some inaccurate hyperbole here (you know which part), but just two last points for me:

1. Getting the scope of a search warrant right is the responsibility of the issuing magistrate or judge. Officers are nearly always going to look for the widest latitude possible, to ensure that what they find isn't tossed out of evidence at pretrial. And that's okay. It's the job of magistrates and issuing judges to determine that the scope of a warrant is too wide and reject it. You're going to struggle to find a way to logically (rather than emotionally) and compellingly demonstrate that the officers ought to have been subjected to a lawsuit.

2. Who cares if Alito has often been a dissenting voice? Your bias is that the majority of judges, then, are always correct in their adherence to the Constitution. I'm sure that you and I could look back in history - particularly in late 19th century, early 20th century civil rights cases and find SCOTUS and Appeals Court majority decisions that we'd both agree were the wrong ones, and egregiously so.

All of which is to say that I still don't see you (or Pawlr) with any leg to stand on in criticizing Alito for refusing to join in exposing officers to that lawsuit. You guys were out with that criticism on the day that Alito was submitted by the White House, and it's just now that you've bothered to get any facts together. And, even then, you seem a tad uninformed on the topic (warrants) for which you are damning him.

I've been guilty of the same thing, by the way, in jumping to conclusions to support or condemn something I want to support or condemn. I've copped to that on your own site, on at least one occasion, in fact. I just think we need to be honest with ourselves in this. For crying out loud, how can you look at Alito's record on abortion cases and say that he takes an ideological stance! He's ruled against the pro-life side many times and for them only once. Come on ... stop playing politics and show some independence of thought on this nomination.

Thursday, November 03, 2005 5:04:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Allen, I won't speak for Paul, but it bothers me that cops will try to stretch warrants beyond their scope. That should be controlled; better someone slips through than all of our rights are limited.

As for majoritarianism, I was saying that all the judges except Alito agreed with the Does. I said that he might still be right, but given his background and philosophy, I doubt it very much.

As for holding cops accountable for overstepping their bounds; I'm all for it.

Regardless of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the scope of the magistrate's warrant, if the cops overstepped, they are personally responsible. You, know, "personal responsibility," one of the banners of the conservatives? I believe in that.

I also believe in protecting civil liberties, which I don't think Alito did in this dissent.

I don't think Alito's choice record is good at all; I posted something for you to read on that (among other things).

Am I to take it that you, Allen "Prolife" Thornblough, who would vote for an electable socialist if that socialist was anti-choice, is unhappy with Alito?

Thursday, November 03, 2005 7:15:00 PM  
Blogger A.T. said...

Real quick. The point ... the ONLY POINT here ... is that the officers DID NOT OVERSTEP the bounds of the warrant. The warrant was very broad in scope, and they did not overstep it. But, it seems, you think that the only correct jurisprudence is to expose them to legal action even though they did nothing illegal. By all means, lets drop the legal nonsense and run our courts via sentimentality. It's the Libocrat way.

Friday, November 04, 2005 7:33:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home