An interesting supreme court case
I found this case to be very interesting to read about, and the article referenced does a good job presenting both sides of the argument. I think this is evidence not only of the importance of having good surpreme court justices, but also of how wrong more then half of the supreme court justices can be. It is also interesting how the media spins it. The article here starts out by saying:
Recognizing that a man’s home is, indeed, his castle, the Supreme Court said Wednesday that police can’t search a house without a warrant if one occupant invites them in but another objects to their presence.
Then as you read you find out that the conservative judges refused to “recognize that a man’s home is, indeed, his castle.” If this is all you read then you would be disapointed with the conservatives and laud the other judges for upholding our privacy.
It is very interesting to read on however, because the rest of the article goes into detail about the position which the conservative judges took and it makes much more sense then how the liberal half ruled. The liberals took a wishy washy, “we need to redefine the constitution for modern times” stand on the issue, and their ruling could very well cause big problems down the road for innocent people who are in harms way.
The sad part about this whole case is that the actual issue at hand involved a situation which was not even a search:
Thomas also dissented, saying the circumstances in Randolph’s case weren’t a search at all, but an instance of a spouse of a suspected criminal leading police to potential evidence and as such were beyond the reach of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against illegal searches.
If the woman had gone into the house and carried the drug paraphernalia out to the police then this case would have been cut and dry. The Police were not searching the house, the woman was showing them evidence, and no one has ever needed a warrent to be presented with evidence. Now, just because some liberal activists judges let power go to their heads and decided they needed to redefine the constitution, a guy who deserves to be punished will go free.
My respect has grown for the conservative judges who took a stand for what is right, despite the fact that it would go to the headlines and make them look bad. They could have changed sides once they saw that they did not have the majority, but they stood fast and were willing to accept the displeasure of society for the sake of truth. Thank you Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas for your service in the face of much adversity. Fyi, Justice Alito did not rule because he wasn’t there during the testimony.
