I am incredulous about many things in this case.
And it turns out that the Attorney General, who in principle benefits from the decision, actually had the juevos to ask Bozo and the Clown Court to think this over. This judge is Mitch Daniels' big achievement, as a nomination? I'm glad Daniels dropped out of the Prez race. One fewer Constitution-breaker for me to hate. The judge who wrote the opinion, Steven David, is an idiot. Don't take my word for it; it says so on the interwebs, and so it must be true.
The first point is that this was clearly within the scope of probable cause. No 4th Amendment issue need be raised. The Indiana Court is just engaging in recreational judicial legislation. It's not (just) that they got it wrong, THERE WAS NO ISSUE THEY HAD TO ADDRESS.
But they also got it way wrong. The point is not that there is a remedy for false arrest and home invasion. The point is that there has to be a presumption that protects citizens from harrassment and to be secure in their homes and their possessions. "They can sue"? Are you kidding me? Sovereign immunity protections aside, even if that WERE somehow a remedy, the 4th Amendment is explicit, and the body of court decisions is clear. I don't have to sue, because the cops can't come in. And if they do come in, they can't use the evidence. End of story.
Yes, in THIS case they had probable cause, and could have entered. But that's what's so outrageous about writing a 4th Amendment opinion on these facts. You can't freakin' amend the Constitution just because in your opinion another remedy has become available. And, again, let me point out that this is a "conservative" court. God save us from conservatives, as Dan pointed out.
Jeez. Am I going to have to vote for Obama? Cause that's messed up. But we need liberal judges, on both state and national courts, to stop this erosion of our most basic, and until now settled, civil rights.
Nod to Angry Alex. Thanks!
.
.
7 comments:
Glad to know a "4th Amendment expert" and Professor concurs with the court's wildly unnecessary ruling.
From one of your links:
Meanwhile, a Fourth Amendment expert at the IU Maurer School of Law in Bloomington said the decision was sound.
“The Supreme Court’s decision means that we can’t allow people to take the law into their own hands,” professor Craig Bradley said. “The law should not allow people to assault police whenever they claim that they ‘thought’ the entry was illegal.”
He went on to say that “if the defendant thought the police officer’s entry into his home was illegal, he has plenty of opportunities to raise that issue through the court system. The risk of harm to both the police and the defendant is too great to allow people to take matters into their own hands.”
Plenty of opportunities to raise it through the Court system? I've been through that system and it drains you of tens of thousands of dollars and in the end the Judge doesn't give a shit and upholds the indictment then laughs about it after hours with his buddy the DA.
Instead, if someone invades your home (including all warrantless invaders) put one between their eyes. Self Defense. End of story.
There are too many stories of innocent men, women, children, and even pets being killed by police who had no warrant or invaded the wrong address.
As Robert Redford said in the movie Spy Game "If it comes down to you or them, send flowers."
Kind of confused as to why Daniels is responsible for every decision of his nominee, yet gets no credit for the guy he supported getting the Attorney General nomination asking for reconsideration.
I'd actually rather hear Daniels himself offer an opinion on the ruling rather than judging through proxies.
Otherwise, I'll be sure to hate Munger for any poor article or decision made by any Duke Political Science faculty member, especially anyone taking a job or getting a degree between 2000 and 2010, you Constitution hater.
After all, Munger, Indiana is a Missouri Plan state. The governor is not free to appoint anyone whom he chooses.
Under the Plan, a non-partisan commission reviews candidates for a judicial vacancy. The commission then sends to the governor a list of candidates considered best qualified. The governor then has sixty days to select a candidate from the list. If the governor does not make a selection within sixty days, the commission makes the selection.
Daniels was choosing from a list of candidates chosen by a nonpartisan commission that he doesn't control.
Even from your link, we see:
The Hon. Steven H. David, Hon. Robyn L. Moberly and Mr. Karl L. Mulvaney were selected. The names of those individuals were sent to Governor Mitch Daniels who selected Judge David as Indiana's 106th justice.
Daniels had three judges to choose from, which is slightly more than the rest of us have to choose from for likely Presidential winners, but still not that much.
Thanks, JT! I did not know that. Thanks for the clarification....
No problem. Incidentally, Alaska is also a Missouri Plan state, which meant that Governor Sarah Palin was forced to appoint a judge so liberal that President Obama just nominated that same pick to the US Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit. She was choosing from two judges, presumably both fairly liberal.
Post a Comment