Justice Scalia scoffed at the idea that there was any need to preserve evidence that might be found in the car in the case of an arrest for a traffic violation. "Evidence of what?" he asked. When Yang suggested that the search might turn up evidence of a more serious crime, Scalia asked in disbelief "you avowedly say that once you arrest somebody you can rummage around for evidence of a different crime"?

Just another thread for the "Scalia is a Nazi" crowd.

Scalia isn't a "nazi". Self repressed Douchbag, yes.

Nice to see Uncle Thomas agreed. Go figure.

"Nice to see Uncle Thomas agreed."

Who the fuck do you think writes his opinions for him?

"Uncle Thomas"

Apparently racism is alive and well in the Democrat Party.

Uncle Thomas"

Apparently racism is alive and well in the Democrat Party.

#5 | Posted by JOE at 2009-05-04 02:37 PM

I never said I was a Dem.

Way to research. You'll make a fine, fine ambulance chaser.

Who the fuck do you think writes his opinions for him?

#4 | Posted by letusprey at 2009-05-04 02:30 PM

Probably the same guy who has to shake his dick after he takes a piss.

"I never said I was a Dem."

Well now's your chance to clear it up. Who did you vote for in 2008?

Who did you vote for in 2008?

#8 | Posted by JOE at 2009-05-04 02:44 PM |

I voted for Reagun and Dumbya.... what party do I belong to?

Starting with Reagan's 'war on drugs' law enforcement has been on a crusade to circumnavigate the U.S. Constitution in an attempt to justify any and all police actions. It is not surprising that a narrow minded Constitutional literalist like Scalia would be among the first to point out that law enforcement's tactics are illegal under the literal words of the Constitution. While of course he is correct in this context, that does not endear him to the fascist law and order wing of the American public.

"I never said I was a Dem."

Well now's your chance to clear it up. Who did you vote for in 2008?

#8 | Posted by JOE at 2009-05-04 02:44 PM |

Gotta try harder than that, Shyster wanna be.

I don't vote party lines....here's a hint! I voted for Duuuhhhbya in 2000.

Joe must be at the "Law Library" doing intense research.

Or getting high.

#10 | Posted by moder8 at 2009-05-04 02:46 PM

Translation: Scalia is correct, and I agree with him, but I feel compelled to somehow make this post sound like I am ripping him anyways.

Stevens, Scalia, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg on one side.

Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer on the other.

This has to be a first.

Scalia isn't a Nazi...

...he's more of a Stalinist. Nice surprise here, though.

I'm surprised to see Scalia and Thomas backing restrictions on government power. I applaud them for doing on this issue.

I'm surprised by Breyer. I'll have to see if I can find his opinion on this case.

yet another 5-4 vote in a seemingly endless series.

Chief Justice Roberts has been an utter failure in building any kind of consensus in this court, as many past chief justices have.

History will not be kind.

It's not History's JOB to be kind.

It needs to be accurate.

#17 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE
"Chief Justice Roberts has been an utter failure in building any kind of consensus in this court, as many past chief justices have.
History will not be kind."

It's not the Chief Justice's job to "build a consensus".

A continual consensus on the court wouldn't indicate an effective Chief Justice. It would indicate a court stacked too much in one direction.

#2 | POSTED BY JOE
"Just another thread for the "Scalia is a Nazi" crowd."

No fan of Scalia, but in this case he's actually defending privacy, saying you can't arrest someone for one crime, and then go search their vehicle to see if there's evidence of another crime, absent probable cause.

I know. The thread was to show those people they are wrong. A quick look at 30 or so recent cases would do them a lot of good.

***"Starting with Reagan's 'war on drugs' law enforcement has been on a crusade to circumnavigate the U.S. Constitution in an attempt to justify any and all police actions. It is not surprising that a narrow minded Constitutional literalist like Scalia would be among the first to point out that law enforcement's tactics are illegal under the literal words of the Constitution. While of course he is correct in this context, that does not endear him to the fascist law and order wing of the American public." MODER8***

So what exactly are you whining about?

Joe, you are wrong. Scalia is a narrow minded literalist when it comes to the Constitution. Just because on a few select issues that means his fundamentalist interpretation happens to parallel the position of many liberals (albeit for different reasons) doesn't mean the guy is any less of a narrow minded literalist who has no business being on the Supreme Court.

***"Chief Justice Roberts has been an utter failure in building any kind of consensus in this court, as many past chief justices have."***

I was totally unaware that "building concensus" was the job of the Chief Justice of the United States.

why is this a surprise to anyone? you fucks think he decides based on a party line? he decides based on the constitution and how he interprets it.

y'all should actually read more of his opinions. he is the most consistent jurist on SCOTUS.

"a narrow minded literalist who has no business being on the Supreme Court."

What makes you think strict constructionists don't belong on the Supreme Court? Be specific.

Apparently racism is alive and well in the Democrat Party.

#5 | Posted by JOE

The dems have all of us pigenholed into small groups and try to play one against the other. That is what they do.

1) Scalia's vote is NOT surprising to anyone jurist. See his vote in Kylo (I think its Kylo; heat sensor device case). He is not really that bad when it comes to individual rights. You just need to understand his interpretation is based upon his assessment of original meaning. I understand his stupid opinion despite disagreeing with him. Atleast his dissents can be hilarious to read...if you are a law student.
2) The dissents shouldn't be too unimaginable either. Alito and Roberts are both pretty pro-police power. Kennedy and Bryer are very pro-brightline justices (Alito and Roberts tend to be as well). Alito and Roberts police power stance does sort of coincide with previous case law. This type of case is just so rare that the rule hadn't ever touched on the spatial-temporal relationship between the arrested person and the vehicle.
3) This case is very old; Arizona v. Gant is the name. It actually reached the Supreme Court in 2003-2004 before being remanded to Arizona because the AZ Supreme Court decided a similar spatial-temporal search case that year. Then it had to make its way all the way back.
4)The tip the officers received was a disheveled guy hanging around the neighborhood earlier in the day who happened to have a crack pipe on him. Gant was being arrested for missing a court appearance on a driving violation and thus had a warrant out. When the officers called out to him asking if he was Gant, Gant affirmed that he was and surrended to police (citing I think mere forgetfulness of the court date). He had gotten out of his car and was walking to his front door when the officers pulled up and yelled to him.
5) For the record, I totally called this case in 2004. But I penned it as 6-3 split back then with Scalia writing the Majority opinion.

It's not History's JOB to be kind.

It needs to be accurate.

------------

Oh....

"y'all should actually read more of his opinions. he is the most consistent jurist on SCOTUS.

#25 | Posted by somoco at 2009-05-05 12:55 PM"

Then explain his decisions in:

1. DC vs. Heller (where he opines that the constitutional standard for determining what weapons are protected is based on an understanding of what is 'in common use at the time,' even though he ripped his colleagues a few years before that for using a similar approach in examining the constitutionality of executing children, saying that the law should be more than a "snapshot of American public opinion at a particular point in time.")

and

2. United States vs. Lopez) (Scalia agrees that somehow the Fed Gov't's Gun Free School Zone Act is constitutional because of the Commerce Clause.)

The phrase "in common use at the time" was precedent from U.S. v. Miller, a 1939 case heavily relied upon by Stevens in his dissent, where the Supreme Court examined the type of weapon at issue when determining whether the Second Amendment granted citizens the right to bear it.

The full quote from Miller was "Ordinarily
when called for service, men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Scalia went on to say that "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."

So, Scalia doesn't say that the "constitutional standard is based on an understanding of what is 'in common use at the time,' he simply abides by that quote from an earlier case. It's also not inconsistent with saying that law should be more than a snapshot of "public opinion" as common use is not the same as public "opinion."

This is the thread where libs flick their forked tongues and spit their venom at Scalia even when he agrees with them.

Snakey libs!!

#32

Pfft! Pfft! Pfft! Sss-sss-sss-sss-sss-sss!

wow, even a blind dog finds his ass somedays.

Liberals are lockstep and operate according to a catechism that provides guidance to them. They cannot understand the idea of independent thought. To be a lib you need to subscribe to authoritarian dictates.

Remember the communist doctrine of "democratic centralism." Once a position is determined, all members of the party will avidly work to advance that position. No further inquiry or evaluation of the position is permitted. No amount of evidence of the unsuitability of the decision can cause it to be questioned. The leftists live in ideological not pragmatic heaven. Once received wisdom has been accepted, it is not thenceforth subject to additional scrutiny.

Speaking if 'rights', here in Massachusetts, there is a town called Dover. It's a town of only 6000 people but it's probably the most 'Money' place in Mass.

They actually plan to bring to a vote a law that would forbid ANY drinking PRIVATE LAND if it is visible from a park or public recreation area. EVEN DRINKING WITHIN YOUR OWN HOME WOULD BE A CRIME under this law if someone can see you doing it.

It seems the rich people of Dover have very little to do with their time.

Mr. Johnson has it bassackwards,

Conservatism means:
1. No change to the status quo and power struture.
1. Respect authority over reason, they are genuine enemies of free thought.
2. Mind your own business
3. Live within your means

As for Scalia, I couldn't help but notice, that contrary to my low opinion of his high opinion of himself, he offered a decent, consistent, correct opinion.

Proving, no one is all bad.

"Proving that no one is all bad."

That statement goes againt the lib Bible.

That statement goes againt the lib Bible.

You mean the Communist Manifesto? Even the bourgeoisie have a part to play in that...

great news!

so maybe those guys they stopped the other day for following too closely and subsequently searched the car by calling a nearby patrols drug to walk around the car --routine, no PB -- and found 7 kgs of coke can be set free.

@FWTHOM:
This is the thread where libs flick their forked tongues and spit their venom at Scalia even when he agrees with them.
Snakey libs!!

you mean the Left is anti-Prohibition? i thought that was supposed to come from the Right.

oh, i forgot, in America "the right" means "religious right."

the America right: a doomed, and apparently loving it and hating it, party... nevertheless, less relevant everyday.

ITCHY,

You should quit blogging and take up cryptography.