[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Read the decision by the majority and tell me it doesn't make a whole lot more sense then Scalito's.


http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator...04/024532p.pdf

How the hell does it make more sense? The warrant stated in three different places they were authorized to search all occupants of the premises! Are you Moore-Ons seriously contending that when you go to a drug dealer's home, his wife and children are off limits? The decision is absurd. What do you Moore-Ons think were necessary? They go stake out the house--stop people going in an out and get their names so they can be on the warrant?

The only reason the court held the way it did was because they did not like the fact a 10 year old was searched (reading between the lines). Had the search been only of the wife, they all would have allowed the search.

Guess what--drug dealers know how you liberals think so guess who's going to be carrying and hiding their drugs?

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by plschwartz

What the case revolved around was that the application for a warrant included searching the whole household of a drug dealer. However the cops did not name them on the warrant but searched them anyway.
The majority citing a bunch of caselaw came down firmly that they had to go by what was written on the warrant not what the cops might have thought was intended.

No--if you read the cases they cited, they ignored the "common sense" approach to a warrant--something in short supply with liberals. They don't have to name every person--it is perfectly acceptable to name the "occupants of the residence"--they don't need the names and that's what they did.

Do you Moore-Ons understand the whole issue is that the information wouldn't fit in the box on the warrant? Are you two seriously contending that if all the info doesn't fit in one box, that they can't use attachments--that it all has to be on the "face of the warrant?"

This is precisly why we have such difficulty fighting crime in this country because we have Moore-Ons that have no common sense like the two judges in this instance.

[plschwartz]

Mulder, swallow if you are eating or drinking.
Cause I actaully agree with Alito on some of the racial/sex disrimination cases where the burden of proof seems to have been shifted to the defendant. Also I have not yet read any other of the decisions but I shall as time goes on. But in the case I sited as well as this:
In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito's disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito's dissent "guts the statutory standard" and "ignores our precedent." In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito's opinion contradicted "well-recognized rules of statutory construction."
Wikapedia

it seems as if he is a cowboy shooting from the hip. He seems to consider himself the standard rather then the law. Of course in these days of Abu and Gitmo he is in the Republican mainstream
Add him to Thomas and Scalia and you have a dangerous bloc in the court. Not because of their viewpoints but because of their limited need to refer to the same corpus of case-law that others on the bench cite.

Its like Dutch Lenard who said: It aint a ball or a strike til I call it.

[plschwartz]

Originally Posted by Mulder

No--if you read the cases they cited, they ignored the "common sense" approach to a warrant--something in short supply with liberals. They don't have to name every person--it is perfectly acceptable to name the "occupants of the residence"--they don't need the names and that's what they did.

Do you Moore-Ons understand the whole issue is that the information wouldn't fit in the box on the warrant? Are you two seriously contending that if all the info doesn't fit in one box, that they can't use attachments--that it all has to be on the "face of the warrant?"

This is precisly why we have such difficulty fighting crime in this country because we have Moore-Ons that have no common sense like the two judges in this instance.

actually I think in the majority decision they state that "occupants of the house " is not legal in the state of Pa.

I am sure the problem has existed in other warrants and the cops found a way to get what they needed on the warrant.

[Mulderator]

Actually--the bottom line here isn't even which was the right decision, but the fact that Alito has been painted as someone who condones "illegal strip searches". The point is it is clear to see how he is being smeared with mis-information--the abortion case is the same--they claim he wants to over turn Roe v. Wade merely because he thinks a wife's husband should be notified before she has an abortion. Yea--that's hard core conservatism!

[plschwartz]

Mulder:
I think that I mentioned my hesitations about him.
However he is a darned sight more qualified to sit on the bench then Miers. There I think better candidates.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by plschwartz

actually I think in the majority decision they state that "occupants of the house " is not legal in the state of Pa.

I am sure the problem has existed in other warrants and the cops found a way to get what they needed on the warrant.

That's not true at all--"occupants of the house" would have been perfectly fine if it had been on the face of the warrant. But according to this court, the affadavit attached to the warrant where it did say this wasn't "incorporated" into the warrant--a ridiculous assertion and certainly not in keeping with common sense.

In fact, you can tell when a court is departing from established law because they use apologetic terms throughout like this court did. " We realize there is law to back the cops up, but . . . " Consider these sentences

To be sure, a warrant must be read in a common sense, non-technical fashion.

As the officers correctly observe, it is perfectly appropriate to construe a warrant in light of an accompanying affidavit or other document that is incorporated within the warrant.

We recognize that there are decisions in which an affidavit has been used to save a defective warrant even when it has not been incorporated within that warrant.

And then the best one:

We are mindful that search warrants and affidavits are often prepared under time pressure and should not be subjected to microscopic dissection.

So after citing cases and stating in each instance they recognize there are cases that support the officer's search, they proceed to say "but, blah, blah, blah".

What a crock--they as much as state that they should not be "microscopically dissecting" a warrant and yet that's exactly what they did. Are you telling me that's common sense? To totally ignore the affadavit that give all the support for the warrant and is incorporated in at least two other places in the warrant and the only reason it wasn't in the one place was because there wasn't enough room in the space provided int he warrant? How stupid is that? Again, only a Moore-On would see this as a violation of civil rights. I can see excluding the evidence at a criminal trial as an improper search (much more at stake there for the violation), but not allowing this wife and child of a drug dealer to sue the police for violation of their civil rights. What a joke--liberal BS is what it is and its ruinign the country, but hey, lots more work for the Plaintiff lawyers and more work for Mulder!

As GWB would say, "Bring em On!" Hell, the liberals can open the flood gates of litgation (and they will) for all I care.

[angelize56]

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) speaking on Alito's nomination to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals : “You have obviously had a very distinguished record, and I certainly commend you for long service in the public interest. I think it is a very commendable career and I am sure you will have a successful one as a judge.”

Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) speaking on Alito's nomination to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals: “I believe Mr. Alito has the experience and the skills to be the kind of judge the public deserves – one who is impartial, thoughtful, and fair. I urge the Senate to confirm his nomination.”

Former Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ): “The confirmation of Sam Alito as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey is testimony to the commitment he has shown and the success of his efforts as a law enforcement official. I am confident that he will continue to do all he can to uphold the laws of this nation with the kind of determination and vigor that has been his trademark in the past.”

********
Career

From 1976 to 1977, Alito clerked for the Honorable Leonard I. Garth of the Third Circuit.

From 1977 to 1981, he served as Assistant United States Attorney, District of New Jersey.

From 1981 to 1985 he was assistant to Solicitor General Rex E. Lee.

From 1985 to 1987 he was deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin Meese.

From 1987 to 1990, he served as United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey.

Alito was nominated by George H. W. Bush on February 20, 1990 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On April 27, 1990, the United States Senate confirmed him. His chambers are in Newark, New Jersey.

He served in the United States Army Reserve and was honorably discharged as a captain.

He is known for his conservative judicial views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_A._Alito,_Jr.

[angelize56]

I can honestly admit he seems much more qualified than Miers!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by angelize56

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) speaking on Alito's nomination to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals : “You have obviously had a very distinguished record, and I certainly commend you for long service in the public interest. I think it is a very commendable career and I am sure you will have a successful one as a judge.”

Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) speaking on Alito's nomination to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals: “I believe Mr. Alito has the experience and the skills to be the kind of judge the public deserves – one who is impartial, thoughtful, and fair. I urge the Senate to confirm his nomination.”

Former Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ): “The confirmation of Sam Alito as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey is testimony to the commitment he has shown and the success of his efforts as a law enforcement official. I am confident that he will continue to do all he can to uphold the laws of this nation with the kind of determination and vigor that has been his trademark in the past.”

********
Career

From 1976 to 1977, Alito clerked for the Honorable Leonard I. Garth of the Third Circuit.

From 1977 to 1981, he served as Assistant United States Attorney, District of New Jersey.

From 1981 to 1985 he was assistant to Solicitor General Rex E. Lee.

From 1985 to 1987 he was deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin Meese.

From 1987 to 1990, he served as United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey.

Alito was nominated by George H. W. Bush on February 20, 1990 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On April 27, 1990, the United States Senate confirmed him. His chambers are in Newark, New Jersey.

He served in the United States Army Reserve and was honorably discharged as a captain.

He is known for his conservative judicial views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_A._Alito,_Jr.

Hey Angel--you actually cited "facts" this time!

This is exactly what I was talking about in my first post--this guy was confirmed to the lower Federal Court unanimously and with glowing remarks from liberals and now their going to turn 180 degrees. But that's nothing for these liberals--they do it all the time. There's not one ounce of intellectual honesty. Watch this judge chew them up like Roberts did. I'm telling you that Bush had this planned the whole time. I'm surprised I didn't see it--he loves Scalia so it is no surprise he chooses a judge that is most like him.

And btw--although the liberals hate Scalia, he is by far the best judge on the court--the other judges can't even fold his friggin robe--they don't even come close.

[angelize56]

Thanks for noticing Mulder!

Further down in the article they say he is nicknamed Scalito!

[plschwartz]

Originally Posted by angelize56

Thanks for noticing Mulder!

Further down in the article they say he is nicknamed Scalito!

Scalia and Ito someone said

[angelize56]

That's correct Paul!

[Rollin' Rog]

Regarding the strip search decision, it seems to me the key to the "majority" ruling is this statement:

As a matter of common
sense, as well as logic, the absence of a
reference to the affidavit must therefore be
viewed as negating any incorporation of
that affidavit.

Now, frankly, my liberal credentials may be in jeopardy here, but this makes absolutely no sense, common or otherwise to me. The Affidavit included in the warrant seems a logical extension of the warrant. Why else is it there?

I have to agree with Alito on this, and have yet to see any decision which suggests ideological extremism.

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by Mulder

How the hell does it make more sense? The warrant stated in three different places they were authorized to search all occupants of the premises! Are you Moore-Ons seriously contending that when you go to a drug dealer's home, his wife and children are off limits? The decision is absurd. What do you Moore-Ons think were necessary? They go stake out the house--stop people going in an out and get their names so they can be on the warrant?

The only reason the court held the way it did was because they did not like the fact a 10 year old was searched (reading between the lines). Had the search been only of the wife, they all would have allowed the search.

Guess what--drug dealers know how you liberals think so guess who's going to be carrying and hiding their drugs?

You obviously didn't read the majority decision (Chertoff--that CHERTOFF!) Read it and stop being so stubborn--you might even learn something---(pay attention to all the cases sited).