Skip to main content

Samuel Alito is a MORAL DEGENERATE.

Just last year Alito upheld the unauthorized STRIP SEARCH OF A TEN-YEAR-OLD GIRL.

Courtesy of the Progress Report:


ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

I'm the father of a 7-month old girl, and I will NOT live in an America where the government can force my daughter to strip and be searched, unclothed, at its whim.

I have no doubt that most Americans feel the same way.  

Alito is a disgusting pervert who believes that innocent ten-year old girls should be forced to take off their clothes at the whim of the government.  

I'm so goddamned angry right now I could spit fire.

This degenerate administration, led by the filthy, immoral Karl Rove, cheerled by GOP propagandists like the three-time-divorced drug addict Limbaugh, phone sex pervert Bill O'Reilly, and male prostitue Jeff Gannon, nowwants my little girl to be subject to random strip searches when she is TEN YEARS OLD.  

Please spread this information far and wide.  Make Alito defend it, in detail. Make BUSH defend it, specifically.  Ask Republicans why they think innocent ten-year old girls should be STRIP-SEARCHED.

Americans WON'T LIKE THIS.   A story like this gets to the heart of this heartless, twisted, un-American, perverted Bush regime.  

UPDATE: VERY interesting responses down below. Thank you all for commenting.

There are a lot of criticisms. Some I've taken to heart, others I find very unimpressive.

First, I'm amazed at the willingness of so many people here to find that strip-searching a 10 year old girl is de facto worth it simply because some awful parents use their kids as drug mules, or words to that effect.

This frame immediately sets up a pecking order of what's important in society and in law, and puts the human rights of a child below the possibility of a drug bust.

Was it an important drug bust? Were lives at stake, and the clock ticking? Was searching this child crucial to breaking up a nefarious crime ring?

Well, you don't know that. And neither do I. (And yes, for all of you patting yourselves on the back for reading the case...I also read it, BEFORE I posted this diary.)

Those of you defending Alito's decision -- and tsk-tsking at my incendiary language -- have thrown your moral weight behind a legal decision that says: bustin' drugs is more important than the rights of an innocent ten year old girl. You take it as a matter of absolute faith that this whole investigation was done with 100% professionalism and good will, and that strip-searching the child (which IS exactly what is was, despite the silly parsing below about her not being fully naked) was worth the risk to her well-being and psyche, and worth ignoring her human rights. Because...maybe they'd catch some meth dealers.

Well, maybe the whole investigation was IN FACT done with 100% professionalism and good will, and the cops were a model of manners and restraint. I come from a family of cops, so I'm very sympathetic to the difficulties of the job.

But many of Alito's peers thought that the cops overstepped their bounds, and I agree. Not only that, I feel like the whole frame of the argument in FAVOR of strip searching the child -- in that court, and sadly, from many below -- assumes that because drugs might be found, the strip search of a child is of course wholly warranted.

What a bunch of crap.

Our rights and our laws have a lot of competing values -- disparate "goods" that are in tension. That's why it's difficult to balance them. But I'm pretty shocked how many people are not weighing, AT ALL, the value -- the good -- of not violating an innocent child's rights, no matter who her parents are.

To answer some of you below: No, I can't say I would never, EVER say that a strip search of a child is "worth it" for the good of society. But in my opinion, it should be a case of lives being at stake. And I don't imagine there are many (if any) such cases.

The idea that simply because a kid might be badly used by her parents to hide drugs makes it common sense that "of course we strip search her!" is morally craven. It criminalizes THE CHILD.

And it's all too in line with the type of thinking that gave us the Patriot Act. The thinking is: because a net good MIGHT come out of something, then by all means, violate that person's rights. If nothing good does come out of it, well heck, we tried. And the person who has been violated? ...They'll get over it.

By the way: the girl did NOT have drugs on her, my hardass, law-and-order loving friends.

Here's the bigger question: do you want your kids strip searched? Of course not. But you're kidding yourselves if you think the kind of law that Samuel Alito makes will protect them or you from that happening, because police powers will always win. (Unless you're a member of the NRA with a semi-automatic.)

It's easy to be smug and say "well, I don't hang out in meth labs." Bully for you -- neither do I. But someday when your kids are in school and the cops have gotten some very important tip about a drug ring in her class, and she is strip-searched without your permission, you can thank yourself for that. Because you decided that the evil of drugs (or worse -- some vauge "terrorism," or bogus "terrorism" which is really political dissent) is OF COURSE more important than some little girl's puny, momentary comfort.

And here I repeat: the little girl was NOT concealing drugs, Magruff-the-Crime-Dog fans.

I realize this is incredibly long, my apologies. But one last thing...

All of the hanky-clutching below about this diary being hystericalmade me laugh. Puh-leaze. I wasn't accusing Alito of being as a child molestor. I was saying that he -- and the Republican party -- have perverted values. I stand 100% by my words.

Yes, I'm aware that the "moral degenerate" frame does bring icky things to mind. Good. It's meant to. This is a brutal soundbite culture, and we need to energize our fight. And we need to put them on the defensive

I know some of you find that intellectually and spiritually dishonest. I respect that to some degree, but I STRONGLY disagree.

The FACT is that Alito was willing to stretch police powers beyond the legal limits (in my opinion, and in the opinion of fellow judges) to approve the STRIP SEARCHING OF A TEN YEAR OLD GIRL. Period.

Let Bush and the Republicans explain it. Let Bush and the Republicans parse out just why THIS case merited strip searching a little girl, and let THEM go into the many, many nuances. Let us help people imagine that it could be THEIR kid, rather than some evil drug-dealin' ten-year old. Let the Republicans react to some blunt, take-no-prisoners framing for a change.

Sorry so many of you aren't comfortable with that. I am. Very.

Originally posted to chumley on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 07:38 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yeah I Noted This In the Kosopedia (2.54)
    Translation: He is a Nazi.

    For the American Nazis, he's the perfect pick. ANY Dem voting for him: I'm done with. He's no Roberts. No Feingold yea will be understandable.

    9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

    by NewDirection on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 07:42:09 AM PST

    •  Don't use the N-word, dammit! (3.87)
      We want this guy to go down.  That means sounding absolutely reasonable, not hysterical.  Don't cross the Godwin's Law line.

      Radical, extremist, fundamentalist... there are plenty of negative words to use without resorting to Nazi.

      Will someone PLEASE give him a blowjob so we can impeach him?

      by Leggy Starlitz on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 07:48:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'll Resprt To Whatever I Damn Well Please (3.17)
        Thanks.

        9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

        by NewDirection on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:01:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Scalito = American Taliban (4.00)
          This sort of American Taliban is an outlier even among judges such as Chertoff!  So who picked him?  Was he picked by Rush Limbaugh?  Maybe Bork was in on it, he wants one of his own on the court.

          Scalito is Bushite scum, but that should not be a surprise to anyone here, the question is, will the Dems find their spines?

          How about you, GOP Joe Lieberman, are you going to continue kissing Bush?

        •  Why the fuck did someone give this guy a 1? (3.33)
          Fuck SCALITO! If someone thinks he's a Nazi so be it? I don't care when people call him the American Taliban and I don't care when they call him a Nazi. He's a fascist piece of shit. Do I expect my Senator to call him a Nazi- hell no. But I'm not a fucking politician. So fuck the American Nazi piece of shit.
          •  I Don't Take It Personally (3.88)
            People were troll-rating me a few days ago for predicting that Fitzmas wouldn't be the end of all our problems for all time.

            Tensions are just high. In any case I know how to write a post to score 48 4s, but I'd rather write what I believe and what I consider to be productive... As opposed to prepackaged pablum up to but never beyond what James Carville's caustic, but hardly poison pen, might produce.

            9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

            by NewDirection on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:18:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  1 = Unproductive (none)
            I believe that this fits. Obviously the point was that the use of the word undercuts the argument in ANY forum, including this one.

            I understand the anger completely, I have a 3-year-old daughter myself.

            BTW: I didn't troll anyone.

            "Make the pie higher."

            by SiD ORMaN on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:29:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah (4.00)
              Everyone knows that calling political figures bad names doesn't work.

              Just ask "war criminal" President John Kerry, and "Osama bin Laden" Senator Max Cleland.

              9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

              by NewDirection on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:35:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Been down this road myself (none)
              For those of us who have not (yet) accumulated enough mojo to give someone a zero (once defined by Kos himself as a "super-troll" rating), a 1 is indeed a troll-rating, no matter how it is scaled on the rating menu.  If I find a comment unproductive, I give it a 2.
            •  How (none)
              Exactly does the Nazi party, and the historical fact that it subverted the political institutions of Weimar Germany to launch illegal wars, undermine human rights, suppress dissent and commit genocide invalidate anybody's arguments?

              The Nazi's represent the State run amok, they happened just over sixty years ago and led to the deaths of millions of people.

              They used propaganda and racial stereotyping, they manipulated the media and the population with cheap, yellow jingoism - they smashed unions and favoured business over people - how exactly does mentioning them invalidate an argument?

              Halley Seven, United States Nil - You see, it can be done!

              by ian1973uk on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 02:02:46 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  exactly (4.00)
          sick and tired of the goddamned speech police. Shit.

          Stop saying that blue state people are out of touch with the morals and values of the red states. I'm not out of touch with them, I just don't share them.

          by missreporter on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:26:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes (none)
          but fascist is more accurate.  Police strip searching a ten year old girl is fascism.

          the meek shall inherit the earth

          by Howaboutthetruth on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 04:33:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree with this whole notion... (3.97)
        that Hitler and the Nazive has no comparison and any such comparison is off limits. Do we think that this same evil will manifest itself in exactly the same way every time? No, evil adapts, as it has here with a propoganda machine like no other. Think of Hitler in 1936, before the world, especially Germans, really perceived him as the danger he would become. This is Germany 1936, if not a little later. Mr. Alito is an educated and evil man whose opinions, if known, would shock the conscience of any right thinking American. We stand at the top of a slope. It is all downhill from here. To those of you who have forever declared this comparison off limits, must we wait until we get to the bottom of the hill to make the parallels? By then, it will be too late.

        Stop hoarding Hitler, Goering, the Nazis and the holocaust. This administratioon has killed a hundred thousand Iraqis, deliberately sat on this hands while a thousand (counted) Orleanians drowned, and manipulated the American vote. They kill journalists, for heaven's sake. They out their own American agents! Now they wish to put a judge on the bench whose conscience is not in the least bit disturbed when a 10 year old girl is subjected to a strip search without probable cause.  

        We do our selves and our future a horrible disservice when we refuse to draw such parallels. Stop saying such parallels are verboten. You don't own the holocaust. The parallels here are ominous. The only difference is that the evil is perpetrated primarily by underlings, of which Alito is merely the latest. When one falls, they get another one.

        Stop declaring Nazi comparisons off limits. Let's not wait this time until it is too late to say anything. Let's make the call now: this is a fascist regime, the Nazis NEVER had propoganda on this level, people are being quietly murdered, and our liberties are sent to the showers daily.

        Alito would have been right at home in the Nazi regime.  

        "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

        by Bensdad on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:18:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Preview is my friend! (none)
          ....Nazis is what I meant. I haven't heard of a "Nazive" party yet. So angry my fingers are flying...and not landing at the airport.

          "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

          by Bensdad on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:20:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly (4.00)
          "Never Again" is increasingly narrowed to mean:
          1. Never again with a cropped moustache.
          2. Never again in Germany. In the thirties and forties in Germany. In guttaral german we can't understand.
          3. Never again if it's already been defeated and condemned by generations of textbooks and culture.
          4. Never again will we make the mistake of premature antifascism.

          9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

          by NewDirection on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:22:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  never again by definition (none)
            Or like this: by simply defining the Nazi atrocities as unique and beyond comparison, we assure that it will never happen again.

            "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." George Herbert Walker Bush

            by liberal atheist on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:52:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  pseudo-Nazi? (4.00)
          I prefer the term fascist since its accuracy is startling and creepy.

          14 Characteristics

          Nazis were more specialized in that they chose Jews as their primary enemies/scapegoats.

          •  Our form of fascism is more akin (4.00)
            To Musssolini's, the godfather of fascism.

            Estato Corporativo, the corporate state, was what the Italians called it.  The marriage of governmental and corporate power.

            •  OH MY GOD (none)
              AND ALITO IS AN EYE-TALIAN!

              By Jupiter, I think you're onto something!

              I keed.

              I don't think Alito is a fascist or a Nazi.  I think he's a very smart man who believes some very strange things that most Americans don't believe and who is being used by people whose tendencies are like a fascist turned down to level 4.  I don't believe for a minute (at this point in our history) that these people want to eliminate Jews or anything of the sort; but I do believe that they'll use radical political means to implement their beliefs, which do not favor an American Liberal (in the classical sense) republic.   And that makes them bad for 300 million Americans, even if they're not evil in the blood-curdlingly sadistic way that "Nazis" are.

              Considerable blueness and swellin'...

              by socratic on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 06:50:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree (none)
                This may seem inappropriate, what with all the Nazi-talk, but I think it's time for a quote from my new favorite movie: Serenity.

                Shepherd Book: They'll send a man who believes hard, who kills and never asks why.

                The context of this quote isn't terrible important, I just thought I should share my theory on the true motivations of MOST of the high-power republicans that we have to deal with.

                They think, no, they're certain, that what they are doing is absolutely the right thing for America, and the World. They truely do believe that WE are a dire threat to this World, and they will do whatever is neccesary to protect their ultimate goal, the World mentioned above.

                This is actually quite similar to the higher-ups in the Nazi regime, I believe. Of course, some of them were in it for the sadistic possibilities, but I think that even they, such a terrifying example of evil, thought they were doing what was best.

                Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. -Douglas Adams

                by DelusionalLiberal on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:57:27 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Nazis aren't defined by their actions... (4.00)
          But more so by their ideals.

          Remember Hitler was no magic dictator.  He accomplished most of what he wanted within his elected terms.  Remember the nazis fired, outed, and tore down anyone who didn't embrace the idea of Germany's greatness.

          With thousands of men held and tortured without trial in our prison bases all over the world, its not a hard leap of faith to make to imagine that they'd ship ALL people of middle eastern decent off to concentration camps for "interrogation" and "preventative detainmet" if only they thought they could get away with it.

          The only thing that stops these men from becoming the next great fascist regime is the thought of losing their power.  When that thought gets further and further away--by, say eliminated checks and balances in congress and stocking the court full of judges sympathetic to your goals--then we will truly have something to worry about.

          Sign the petition for an open mid-term convention!

          by MadCasey on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:20:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I could not agree more (4.00)
          And I'm Jewish.
        •  fair enough (none)
          you go ahead and call them nazis

          and dont be suprised when nobody outside this echo chamber takes you seriously

          I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising. www.walken2008.com

          by The Exalted on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 04:12:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right. (none)
            Comparisons to the Nazis always lose. Nobody outside of Free Republic ever had their opinions altered by the word "feminazi".

            Oh wait...

            Look, mention of Nazis ending the discussion is just a quaint custom developed on Usenet. Do you know what Godwin's Law really says? (Do you know how few people today even know what Usenet is?) Here:

            As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
            Using any mention of Nazis or fascists to declare a discussion is over is fine for limiting arguments on Usenet, which need some sort of upper bound anyway or they'd maunder on forever. (Scoop doesn't need such limits -- its threads have a natural expiry date built in, as everyone's attention moves on to some new diary.)

            Forbidding comparison to Nazis when that comparison is true, is a pretty good method of guaranteeing that fascism will happen again.

            Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

            by Canadian Reader on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 05:26:13 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  asdf (none)
              when you find evidence that judge alito supports the forced euthanasia of ethnic groups, the elimination of all freedoms, and the subversion of the government to a cult of personality, report back to me

              I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising. www.walken2008.com

              by The Exalted on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 11:33:50 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  This isn't about Alito. (none)
                It's about the way some people try to shout down anyone who points out a similarity to the Nazis, even if it's true. That is a recipe for letting genocide, totalitarianism, and forced adulation of a dictator happen all over again.

                The Holocaust was not a unique one-time-only horror. People who try to pretend it was, are in denial that it sprang from a potential for consent to evil inherent in all humans. The German leadership carried out their mass slaughter of Jews, Romany, and gays with appalling efficiency because they were, well, Germans. But they got into power in Germany by well-worn routes through human weakness that have been used by many others.

                The way they got into power needs to be examined, over and over again, in every nation, in every age, to the end of time. You must not rule them out of discussion, because if you do, you prevent people from talking about where certain roads end.

                The Republican Party under the Cheney/Rove gang has not slaughtered millions -- yet. Neither had the Nazis, in 1938. But the GOP is all about removing civil rights. It uses aggressive war to maintain its power. It uses "patriotism" and "religion" to prevent critical thought. It has dreams of empire. These are danger signals. They should shout to anyone with historical awareness, "Turn away, turn away!"

                But, no. You want to be literal-minded; you want to wall off the Nazis and make them sacred in the name of their victims, so that no-one can benefit from the object lesson until it is too late.

                Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

                by Canadian Reader on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 01:58:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  i want nothing of the sort (none)
                  as one steeped in the history of fascism, i, too, see some fascist tendencies. nothing wrong with pointing that out.

                  and, given the events in rwanda and sudan, its rather silly to argue that it can happen again when its happening right now.

                  but, here, judge alito was labelled a nazi. i called shenanigans.

                  and there is a difference between the word 'fascist' and 'nazi'.

                  to maintain credibility, semantics matter.

                  I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising. www.walken2008.com

                  by The Exalted on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 02:25:22 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (none)
        The poster shoulda said Pedophile.
      •  Awesome tag line. (none)
        Sorry to say, I'm not up for it myself unless no one else wants to step up to the plate (and that only in the hope of saving lives over the long run).
    •  Not Nazi, PERVERT (4.00)
      Don't break Godwin's Law to Americans.

      Part of the reason we have Fascists running things now is  because people were far too loose with accusations of "Fascist" back in the '60s, '70s and '80s.

      DO remember that Americans HATE any kind of deviation from sexual norms, and LOVE to hear about pervs. (why ELSE would the Church scandals still be getting such good play on local news programs?)

      It's the Dishonesty, Stupid!

      by dabize on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:13:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No... (3.50)
        ...That's not the point.
        The point is the absolute, no-boundaries abolition of the rights of the individual in the face of the power of the state.
        Totalitarian; in short: Nazi.

        Calling him a pervert over this, now that is distracting.
        Maybe true, but an entirely separate issue.

        9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

        by NewDirection on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:38:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, but it WORKS (none)
          And abortion rights, while very important,  is NOT the most critical reason why this guy needs to be stopped - its civil liberties in general.

          Abortion rights is a lightning rod issue - if Roe is overturned, the GOPers will be doomed - they'll wake up too many people with that one.

          Karl Rove shouldn't want that.

          I admit that my disgust with the lowbrow, credulous and sheepish mentality that now pervades America is showing here, but my advice, however cynical, is still correct.

          It's the Dishonesty, Stupid!

          by dabize on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:54:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Who Does That Work With? (4.00)
            Where do these groupthink determinations that this or that works or doesn't work come from?

            Perhaps the same source that has been telling Democrats what works since 1976?

            9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

            by NewDirection on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:14:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Laziest of Rhetoric (3.50)
          If you mean Totalitarianism why not say Totalitarianism?  Nazism carries with it a lot more weight and to toss it around so lightly belittles the people who were victims of their attrocities.
          •  Oh Bull (none)
            How do you think those victims would view people who declined to use strong rhetoric in an effort to make damn sure that totalitarianism didn't completely take over another powerful nation?

            How many people went to the gas chambers thinking, "Gee, I hope people don't use this as a reason to argue that rightwingers can't be trusted"?

            It belittles the scope of the historical and present crimes of the right wing, and the hopes of its victims for its ultimate defeat, to refuse to use the spectre of its past extremes to illustrate the danger of it's present resurrection.

            9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

            by NewDirection on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:27:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Innaccuracy doesn't serve your argument (none)
              How many undecided folks disregard everything you have to say when you call everything Nazism?
              •  I Don't Know, How Many? (none)
                How many undediced people are prone to read any of my comments or diaries? Actually the odds are far lower than the hundred percent you infer that they woudl find me comparing anything to Nazism. Actually, I am reserved in my use of the N-word. I apply it only when moved to do so by a strong emotion, as in this case.

                Meanwhile, unless you are such an undecided who has hereby decided not to agree with me, any assertion you make on that score is gratuitous, as well as unscientific.

                9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

                by NewDirection on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:49:57 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  And how many disregard yours... (none)
                ...when you keep dishing out 3 ratings to good, intelligent comments?
              •  semantics (none)
                I think we all know what is implied by the term "nazi", and it seems like alot of energy is wasted in trying to label (most accurately) this douchebag. It's semantics; but if it walks like a duck.........
                To me just another member of the bush crime family.
      •  Um (none)
        "why ELSE would the Church scandals still be getting such good play on local news programs"

        Because they are true?  Because taking advantage of a position of authority to have sex with minors rankles decent people?

        •  It's terrible (none)
          but its less important than the catastrophic destruction of the basis of America's political system being engineered by the Bushies.

          I'm pissed off at an America that doesn't see this.

          To revert to the Nazi metaphor:

          You can't focus on the utter inhumanity of the massacre of Lidice at the expense of fighting to keep the Nazis from getting the Bomb.

          It's the Dishonesty, Stupid!

          by dabize on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:59:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Apologies (none)
            Your comment is too elliptical for me.  I might like to agree with you -- please state clearly what you mean.

            My comment was simply an aside on the upthread comment (paraphrasing) "why do think that church sex scandals are still in the news?".

            The ends never justify the means

            •  OK (none)
              I have been getting heartily sick of all the "perv priest" stuff because it has become a distraction - it is too much like people rubbernecking at car crashes on the highway. Or like the OJ trial etc.

              I didn't mean that it wasn't important enough to spotlight it when it first came up. Of course it was.

              I'm an atheist and am always happy to see organized religion cut down to size and taken off its moral high horse - but I think "enough already" about the priests.

              It's the Dishonesty, Stupid!

              by dabize on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:42:21 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Oh for godssake (4.00)
      PLEASE STOP CALLING PEOPLE NAZIS

      Seriously.  You could make pages upon pages of legitimate and well considered assertions about somebody and totally destroy all of your credibility with just that one word.  Just stop it.  

      --- If trickle down economics worked, Marie Antoinette wouldn't have lost her head

      by sterno on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:40:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No. (3.57)
        We didn't defeat the Nazi regime so that when the time came around, yet again, to shout down the proto-Nazis in this country, people could be too milquetoasty to speak the truth about it.

        You think I'm going to be reduced to tears on the Senate floor taking back the N-word?
        Guess again.

        9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

        by NewDirection on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:46:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You won't be reduced to tears. (3.83)
          Your accusation may even be true. But it is a way to lose the argument. And if you lose the argument, then Alito will be confirmed.

          Keep your eye on the prize. All that matter here is winning the argument and stopping Alito's confirmation. Using the "N" word hinders that aim. So don't do it.

          •  Who Am I Arguing With Here? (4.00)
            Other than :
            1. A bunch of Democrats so hard up for a voice they think that this is the editorial page of the New York Times,
            2. People who mistakenly think they are my editor?

            I'll say what I like, thanks.

            9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

            by NewDirection on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:12:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's a community (3.85)
              If you don't want the community to discuss your views, don't post them.  Otherwise, discussion is what makes this place interesting.
            •  you're arguing with people (none)
              who know what nazis really are

              and know that alito is not a nazi

              and know that you demean both yourself and this entire discourse by your use of such a defamatory and inapplicable word to tar an ideological opponent

              I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising. www.walken2008.com

              by The Exalted on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:06:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  How (none)
                exactly do you have a handle on whether Alito is or is not a nazi?  Maybe he is not a card-carrying member of a German political party that was banned after the Nuremburg Trials ended; but if some of his views approximate those of the Nazi period then the comparison is fair game.

                This kind of stupid politically correct focus on semantics is what is stopping you successfully fighting the Right Wing in your country.

                Go on Powerline or one of the other Wingnut Blogs - see how many people over there are discussing whether they lose the argument when they use the term Femi-Nazi or Islamo-fascist.

                Halley Seven, United States Nil - You see, it can be done!

                by ian1973uk on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 02:27:03 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  You are confusing..... (none)
        ...speech we use within our community with rhetoric we use to persuade others outside of the community. I would use caution in the latter situation, and would use the Nazi comparison only in one on one situations, which I do regularly. In an ad, or as a tactic, or as rhetoric I would never use it.

        Here, I'll say it: these people have better propoganda, are even more bellicose, and are just as intent on destroying human freedom as the NAZIS.

        It's Germany and this is 1936. Start calling it.

        "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

        by Bensdad on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:20:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  ok (4.00)
      nazi debate : valid points on both sides, BUT the most important consideration - do you want our side to be shrill, hysterical liberals?  or the rational voice of middle america.

      it's all about perception, and you made your choice with that comment.  unproductive.

    •  We digress. What we need is a factual shitlist. (4.00)
      Scalito believes....

      ... in strip searching 10 year old girls

      ... that a woman has to go running to her husband to ask if she can get an abortion.

      ... that an employer has to outwardly pronounce "I am a racist" before anyone can call what he did racist.

      Like that, people. Use language to say why this guy is a fascist nazi satan worshipping slave holding soul sucking shitbag worth the biggest slugfest we've ever had, bar none. Oh sure, wild adjectives blur the mix, but we have a real reason here.

      BTW: I've started this shitlist here, but it would be far better if a knowledgeable person did this.

      Really people, we have to say out loud what this guy called fair, and ask friends & neighbors if they agree. If enough of them disagree with him soon enough, he goes down.

  •  fight this sick bastard (3.64)
    Expose Alito's filthy mind, his lack of morals, his un-American ways.  

    And FIGHT him to the death.

    •  I already faxed Feinstein about this (4.00)
      in both S.F. and D.C. offices.

      Honest to God, if this freak makes it to hearings and this specific case isn't raised, I'll be down in front of Feinstein's office picketing.

      •  good for you (none)
        ...for getting right on this issue.

        "Honest to God, if this freak makes it to hearings and this specific case isn't raised, I'll be down in front of Feinstein's office picketing"

        I feel the same way.  I am ready to knock some goddamned heads together about this.  

      •  emailed Specter about this one too (none)
        although some of the red sites call him and Alito 'friends' I cannot find a legitimate reference to that.

        No one can make you feel inferior without your consent - Eleanor Roosevelt

        by PAbluestater on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:33:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You go, bro! This is intolerable. (none)
      Contacted Boxer and DiFi (current Sens).
      .
      Will harangue Schumer and Hillary (soon to be Sens once the Gropenator's ass has been sufficiently kicked to the dustbin of history.)
      .

      Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. - Denis Diderot

      by Peanut on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:21:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  He will have to answer for this (4.00)
      Since he already issued this decision, the Democrats on the committee need to force him to answer in detail about his entire thought-process on this decision. If he tries to stonewall - we tear him apart from trying to hide his extremist views. If he answers, he opens the door into his sick mind and un-American judicial philosphy.

      With Specter retiring, any chance he actually stands up for his values and doesn't let Alito get out of the committee?

    •  Republican Family Values? (none)
      Ask your friends, relatives, neighbors, and co-workers if these are the kind of family values they meant when they voted Republican last year.  Because this is what Bush said he would do:  appoint Justices in the Thomas/Scalia mold.  They're getting exactly what they voted for, and these must obviously be their values also.

      "My job is to protect the American people." George W. Bush. Did he?

      by PAprogressive on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:29:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is a huge distortion of the legal question (none)
      presented to Alito's court.  Question his legal reasoning, but calling him a moral degenerate? Give me a break.

      "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

      by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:10:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Frame: We Can't Trust Bush To Get It Right (4.00)
    Here's why:

    #1: Alito favors strip-searching ten-year-olds.  (Go check out Atrios' top post right now.)

    #2: After FEMA's Michael Brown, DHS' Michael Chertoff, and the almost-nominations of Bernie Kerik and Harriet Miers -- not to mention the fact that Bush lied us into war on Iraq, as the TreasonGate case shows -- can we trust Bush to do ANYTHING right?  Especially something as vital as a Supreme Court justice.

    •  right-WING, yes, but not right (4.00)
      "We Can't Trust Bush To Get It Right"

      Couldn't agree more, Phoenix Woman.  Democrats need to shout this -- or variations on this -- far and wide.  

      I'd add:  TreasonGate ALSO shows us that he's fine with outing CIA officers for political revenge, and we can't trust a President who believes that.  If he really DID object to outing CIA officers for political purposes, he would have gotten to the bottom of this two years ago.  He chose not to.

      I'm glad Atrios picked the Alito thing, too.  It's SO beyond the pale of deceny, I think that alone could sink the nomination if it gets out.

      •  Corrupt and Incompetent (4.00)
        We HAVE to hammer the whole issue of "We Can't Trust Bush With ANYTHING".

        -- He promised to keep us safe, but ignored Clinton and Sandy Berger's warnings about Al-Qaeda and Osama until AFTER 9/11

        -- He promised to get Osama "dead or alive", but then got bored with Afghanistan and went into Iraq, so Osama is still free and plotting against us

        -- He lied to us on Iraq, then screwed up the invasion and now over 2000 Americans and 100,000 Iraqs are dead as a result

        -- His appointees and nominees are corrupt and/or incompentent hacks whose main "qualification" is sucking up to Bush (Brown, Chertoff, Kerik, Miers, Bolton, etc.)

        There you go.  Write letters to Senators at http://www.senate.gov, write letters to your local papers, just plain write!

        •  very well said, PW (n/t) (none)
          •  Right on.... (none)
            Every thing Bush touches turns to shit. Not just for the left, for everyone. It seems strange that he still has his presidential powers after all he has done. The power to nominate a Supreme Court Justice should not be in the hands of a proven traitor. This nomination must be stopped. Roberts is bad enough.
          •  chumley (none)
            "Akron. I'd like to be in Akron."  I played Chumley onstage.

            Well, the elite have to go to Akron now to rescue the constitution from the red staters, whose self-indulgent TV-fed fears are taking us farther into fascism.  

            How far can it go? Is there a tipping point, or is the other end of the seesaw just a silent load of shit?

            Damn, I miss the fifties.

            "Daddy, what did you do in Bush Two?

            by omfreebogart on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:41:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  There is no tipping point for some people (4.00)
              Remember, there was a Stalin. There was a Hitler. There was a "dirty war" in Argentina. There was an Inquisition. There have been, probably, thousands of such epochs in human history. And I don't think anyone yet knows how to stop one in its tracks. All we can do is keep fighting.

              The Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which put the United States into the Vietnam war, passed in 1964. By 1968, a president had gone down (Lyndon Johnson declined to run for re-election). Then in 1974 another president went down (Nixon resigned). The U.S. finally withdrew from Vietnam, and Saigon fell to North Vietnamese forces in 1975. That is 11 years of murderous hell.

              This hideous war in Iraq started in 2003. Right now I cannot imagine it continuing for more than another year or two. God help us all if it does. But if the war does come to an end soon, as I expect, we will have saved perhaps tens of thousands of lives on both sides by comparison with Vietnam. Cold comfort, but better than nothing.

              That is why we simply have to keep fighting back. We also should have plans, if possible, to protect ourselves and our families in case of chaos or the advent of a police state in this country. There is no other choice.

  •  the case itself (4.00)
    Read it here.  Judge Chertoff wrote the majority.  

    Of note, the warrant application read "The search should also include all occupants of the
    residence as the information developed shows that [John Doe] has frequent visitors that purchase methamphetamine. These persons may be on the premises at the time of the execution of the search warrant and may attempt to conceal controlled substances on their persons"

    •  Nothing personal, but: (3.25)
      "The search should also include all occupants of the residence as the information developed shows that [John Doe] has frequent visitors that purchase methamphetamine. These persons may be on the premises at the time of the execution of the search warrant and may attempt to conceal controlled substances on their persons"

      WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT THAT!

      I'm so sorry Mister Scalito but violating the innocence of a child always trumps the possibility of apprehending a drug criminal.

      Have you no morals? Are you a base degenerate?

      I don't understand how men like Scalito can be allowed by the people of this country to serve in any judicial capacity?

      This is sickening.

      You want to downsize the government?
      Fuck you. My government defends the American people.

      by deafmetal on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:04:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What is even more fucked up (4.00)
        is that the people at this house may have been known to conceal their drugs on children, including, I guess their ten year old daughter.
        •  you wouldn't be so goddamned smug... (3.22)
          ....if it were your kid.

          That's reality, friend.

          •  meant to post this... (3.00)
            ...To your snotty commet below:

            "What the hell are you doing posting facts here to refute our righteous anger. What do you think this is, a reality based community?"

            Does your world of facts include the impact of strip searches on a ten-year old girl?  Or is that beneath your consideration?

            •  "Strip search?" (3.00)
              She was asked to take off her pants in a private room by a female officer, with her mom present.
              •  Do you have a daughter? (4.00)
                I do.

                I understand that you think we are slipping into hysterics here. But when the police force a ten-year old girl to take off her pants it is wrong. It is a sexually humiliating experience for an adult. It is even more likely to be damaging to a child.

                Is taking a ten-year old girl along to purchase meth wrong? You bet. And its possibly grounds for taking a child from her parents depending on the totality of circumstances. But we should hold the police to higher standards than the behavior of meth addicts when it comes to how the treat children, dont you think? Apparently Alito does not. And as a father that scares me. I suspect (and hope) it will scare a lot of parents and I hope that kills this nomination.  

                "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories." -- Amilcar Cabral (-10.00, -9.28)

                by Christopher Day on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:46:08 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Will you admit (3.80)
                  that there are cases which may warrant invasively searching ten year old girls, or is that just totally off the table for you?
                •  "The bomb in the baby carriage.." (4.00)
                  ...was wired to the radio. These are the days...." Paul Simon

                  I'm a pacifistic, pro-choice independent. I published a thesis on methods of interviewing children, and worked with all ages in the public schools, group homes and mental health clinics.

                  Okay, some perp has been using his/ her kids as shields to hide drugs, money, weapons, whatever. The police want to search everyone on the premises. They've brought along a woman to examine females.  

                  I think that a KIND, CARING person can search a child without causing trauma.

                  Don't automatically assume that police are unfeeling droids out to do evil, or worse, libidinous pervs just itching to get his/her hands on a ten year old.

                  We have bigger fish to fry with this guy. Go for a larger civil rights issue that doesn't push the crime hot-button for the white right.

                  "Daddy, what did you do in Bush Two?

                  by omfreebogart on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 03:28:17 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  you are factually wromg (4.00)
                    Just read up on the facts of the case. Police wanted to search anybody in that house, but the judge explicitely removed that provision from the actual search warrant. They were only allowed to search the suspect.

                    Then, police illegally forced said additional strip searches.  Oh, yeah, and the mother was present - because she was also forced to submit to a strip search. Illlegally, too.

                    "Okay, some perp has been using his/ her kids as shields"

                    No, "some perp" just happend to live in his house with his family. Yes, he owned drugs, but that doesn't make his kid a criminal.

                    •  A child is in the custody of, (none)
                      and under the control of, the parent. The object is not to arrest the child. The object is to find illicit drugs belonging to the parent, who might be using the child, who indeed is not a criminal, but is a pawn in the game.

                      Maybe the drug laws are wrong. Maybe society is too hung up on drugs. But that's not the point here. The real world is full of people who pull their kids into unhealthy behaviors. If the parent did hide drugs on the kid, what effect does that have on the kid?  

                      "Daddy, what did you do in Bush Two?

                      by omfreebogart on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:56:59 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Two wrongs DON'T make a right. (none)
                        The real world is full of people who pull their kids into unhealthy behaviors. If the parent did hide drugs on the kid, what effect does that have on the kid?  

                        And in your world the poor child would also have to be subjected to a stranger forcing them to remove their underwear.

                        Great. Nice one.

                        Why don't you try thinking a little less black and white on this issue.

                        You want to downsize the government?
                        Fuck you. My government defends the American people.

                        by deafmetal on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 02:06:45 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  No (none)
                    A stranger strip searching a kid in a starnge environment is totally unacceptable.This is a major issue and as a father I am totally amazed at this line of arguement. Why should a kid be violated just because a parent is a "perp".
                     
                •  I too (none)
                  have a daughter and am disgusted at the thought of any form of strip or bady search for a minor. Even if I were a drug crazed mass murderer or Usama or something (none of which I am) that would still not be enough reason to debase a minor.
              •  if it was your son (none)
                who was taken into a room to be strip searched and he was told to take down his pants and bend over, how would you feel?  the same way?  I doubt it.  

                Just because you're self-righteous doesn't mean you're not a hypocrite.

                by AMcG826 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:00:07 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Adam B (3.00)
                Thank you for spending the time to inject some semblance of sanity into this mess.  

                Now, I see the "recommend" button.  Where's the "Please hide this diary, cause it's just plain embarrassing" button?

            •  Get your head out of your heart for a minute (3.83)
              and read the damn case. There are quite a few facts that you are conveniently ignoring in order to get your hackles up.
              •  Memes and frames (4.00)
                > There are quite a few facts that you are
                > conveniently ignoring in order to get your hackles
                >  up.

                I am not taking a position on the argument, but in terms of memes and frames that is meaningless.  Were a reporter to hit Mr. Bush cold with the question, "Your nominee voted to allow police to strip-search a 10 y.o. girl when they had only a warrant for a 40 y.o. man; do you consider that acceptable?" it would not matter how much Mr. Bush or his supporters tried to recite the "facts" - the meme would be implanted.  See Rove, Karl, mode of operation.

                sPh

                •  Your point is valid (4.00)
                  but it is hard to be a member of a reality based community when you decide that facts don't matter on the way to your goals.
                  •  When you are only given time to recite some facts (none)
                    I strongly believe you cite those that bset support your case in a ten second or less sound bite. Something like "Judge Alito dissented alone in defending the unwarranted strip search a 10-year old girl. Do you agree with Judge Alito's position expanding police search and seizure, or do you think that the settled law should be followed, as did the rest of the judges in the majority on this opinion?"

                    Don't yell pervert, but be sure to state the relevant AND sordid facts of the case.

                    "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

                    by bewert on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:07:57 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  all this reality based community crap (4.00)
                    is starting to become a coverup for having one's head up one's ass to avoid whatever other reality you don't want to face.  It's so cool to be the one claiming to be the reality based poster.  But most of the time it is just a bully tactic which has nothing to do with reality at all.

                    When you daughter is ten and you think she has hidden something on her person, have a stranger strip search her and see if she ever forgives you.

                    This child did nothing to deserve the treatment she got. Unless they had reason to think she was hiding WMD, there was no reason to humiliate her that way.  

                    Or maybe you have to have been a 10 year old girl at one time to understand that.

                    Liberal, Christian, Feminazi, Mom.

                    by TeresaInPa on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:53:46 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If I believed my daughter should be strip searched (none)
                      I wouldn't get someone else.
                      But it was the police based upon the action of the parents.  Are we to turn the mother and the girl into the same bathroom to check each other?
                      Who's head is where?
                      •  Arguing about the wrong thing (none)
                        They weren't on the warrant, they shouldn't have been stripped and searched.

                        You can argue about whether or not that's a good or a bad thing in this case.  But you can't argue that they were legally justified.

                        It's not a good thing to have a judge that thinks the cops should be able to go beyond their orders whenever they feel they have cause.

                        Jumping on the politicalcompass.org bandwagon: (-3.63, -3.03) - Does that make me part of the right wing here?

                        by someone else on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:37:00 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  you cannot be serious (none)
                      see if this mother's daughter "forgives" her? she took her into a meth den! wtf, do you not see this?

                      the child did not "deserve" the treatment? when does any innocent person "deserve" to be searched? face the facts, the innocent sometimes are searched.

                      I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising. www.walken2008.com

                      by The Exalted on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:11:20 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  You aren't following the case (4.00)
              This was a narrow decision on whether the warrant was properly filled out. You seem to object to a search warrant ever granting authority to strip search a ten-year-old girl. That's a defensible position, but not particularly relevant.

              I've got blisters on my fingers!

              by Elwood Dowd on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:16:02 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  and if she had meth on her? (4.00)
              then what, still crazy, wild-eyed, unreasonable ruling?

              I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising. www.walken2008.com

              by The Exalted on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:11:41 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes (4.00)
                The fact that someone is actually guilty of a crime does not justify throwing out the constitution.

                The police sought permission.  Did not get it.  Went ahead anyway.

                Television is the opiate of the masses.

                by i dunno on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 02:45:21 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  If I was dealing meth (4.00)
            and hiding it in my kids drawers, I think the police looking in there to find it is the least of my kids worries.
            •  What if (none)
              you weren't dealing meth?What then?
              •  Well, then I doubt that the police (3.00)
                would then have a warrant to search all occupants of the house.
                •  Would you (none)
                  consider reading the judgement?
                •  the warrant (none)
                  allowed for search of others in the house who might have been purchasing drugs....nothing about hiding drugs on children.  

                  Just because you're self-righteous doesn't mean you're not a hypocrite.

                  by AMcG826 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:49:57 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Read the Case (4.00)
                    The underlying affidavit requested for leave to search "all occupants."  That's clear, repeated several times.  Unavoidable.

                    This case is smoke and mirrors and does not help us.  It turns on an arcane legal technicality - is the failure to incorporate an affidavit by reference into that portion of a search warrant delineating the scope of the search a harmless procedural error, or does it have substantive effect?

                    The court said, "it's substantive".  Alito said "it's procedure."

                    The only reference to the age of the girl in the entire case is with reference to protective searching - i.e. searches done to protect the officers.  The officers didn't claim that the girl was searched for that reason, and the court stated in dicta that such an assertion would be ludicrous (but, apparently, only with little white girls in Pennsylvania, becuase it happens to little black boys in the ghetto all the time.)

                    My separate place for mental meanderings: Political Sapphire

                    by shanikka on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:56:03 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  re: (none)
                      becuase it happens to little black boys in the ghetto all the time.

                      And it shouldn't. Ever.

                      Shit this country is going down the drain.

                      You want to downsize the government?
                      Fuck you. My government defends the American people.

                      by deafmetal on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:41:58 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  well . . . (none)
                . . . if the police don't have probable cause, they don't get in the house at all.
                •  Why not (2.33)
                  read the judgement then? Do we have to rehash the whole case here? Do you even want to considering your boy was in the minority?
                  •  he's not "my boy" (4.00)
                    And I'm the one who posted the decision, so, yes, I've read it.  
                    •  Sorry but (3.33)
                      you are defending someone ,whose judgement was in the minority, with such a vigor that you don't believe forcing someone to take off their pants constitutes "stripsearch".
                      •  To me . . . (none)
                        "strip search" means naked.   And all I want to argue is that there are facts here that people need to understand, and that this case is not simple.
                        •  Of course, the (none)
                          case is not simple but political talking points eed to be simple and it is not that Alito's position was the mainstream one anyway. As far as stripsearch is considered, if you are asked to remove your pants it is stripsearch.
                        •  strip tease (none)
                          People are stumbling over "strip." "Strip search" has a prurient charge. "10 year old girl strip searched" has a huger charge, because it suggests inappropriate fondling, etc.  

                          As I earlier posted, a KIND, CARING, (non-weird) official can conduct such a search without traumatizing a child. They do exist.

                          Once at the Canadian border three of us stoned longhairs laughed at a picture of Nixon on the wall and were STRIP-SEARCHED for our insolence.

                          10 yr old girls don't usually provoke the cops. And cops don't usually molest, harrass, or shame children.

                          Relax. There are bigger fish to fry with this judge.

                          "Daddy, what did you do in Bush Two?

                          by omfreebogart on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 03:52:21 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You sure seem (none)
                            like you dont want this outrageous case raised in public
                          •  fine, raise it (none)
                            but be rational. The hysteria aroused on this thread seems reactionary. I've worked with and lived around cops and people who break laws.

                            What arouses me is people abusing hard drugs while having custody of young children. If I had to decide how lousy a parent was, the discovery of drugs on a child would be an indicator.

                            Children are pretty resilient to reasonable behavior. Don't automatically assume that a policewoman, in the presence of a child's mother, searching a child, causes some kind of world-shaking event.

                            Any problem--the bad effect on the child-- would most likely be the mother. Have you been around meth or crack addicts? It's not a pretty sight when they're not getting their way. And many will sacrifice their children to their habit.

                            "Daddy, what did you do in Bush Two?

                            by omfreebogart on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 12:19:08 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i agree (none)
                            69764 seems very insistent on changing the subject.

                            Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

                            by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 03:52:32 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

          •  I also would not be in a meth-house with my kid (4.00)
            either.

            You raise a great scare-headline issue, but it is in the end a non-starter.

            cheers,

            Mitch Gore

            Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

            by Lestatdelc on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:07:31 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Bull (none)
              This is a fringe wingnut, and a fringe wingnut position.

              That fringe wingnut positions are unchallenged at this day and age even among supposedly liberal supposed activists beggars the faintest hope.

              It's an unreasonable search and seizure. That's why it went to court. That's why it took a wingnut judge appointed by a Bush to decide that way.

              9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

              by NewDirection on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:03:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  You don't even know that for sure. (none)
              You might very well get in a situation where there was a meth house operating in a nice normal city apartment on the floor above you, the cops might very well get the wrong darn floor, that is not such an unbelievable scenario.

              Mitch, I usually agree with your comments 100%, if rated you highly on more than one occasion, but you're arguing the wrong side of an issue that is already far too polarized this time.

              The cops should never be allowed to strip search a child without a specific search warrant, for that specific child, in triplicate if I had my way.

              If they can't get one, or if they don't have time, then too bad they'll have to find another way to aprehend the perp, they're cops right? They can figure out how to bust the big bad drug dealer without abusing a child's rights.

              End of story.

              You want to downsize the government?
              Fuck you. My government defends the American people.

              by deafmetal on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:38:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  what? (none)
                why???

                children have greater rights now than adults??

                when is this ever the caes?

                in fact, it is quite the opposite, in almost every aspect of society

                I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising. www.walken2008.com

                by The Exalted on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:13:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'd say in terms of "strip searching"... (none)
                  A child, ie a being who is not sexually mature should be treated with more care than an adult when you are dealing with invasive sexually charged procedures.

                  I dunno, maybe I'm crazy though?

                  You want to downsize the government?
                  Fuck you. My government defends the American people.

                  by deafmetal on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 07:29:07 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  how is it sexually charged? (none)
                    a female officer searching her with her mother present?

                    I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising. www.walken2008.com

                    by The Exalted on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 11:31:16 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Any time you have to pull your underwear... (none)
                      ...down, it's "sexually charged".

                      Your underwear after all is what you use to keep your "sexual" organs private.

                      Try pulling your underwear down in front of a stranger, then maybe you won't need me to tell you how it's "sexually charged".

                      You want to downsize the government?
                      Fuck you. My government defends the American people.

                      by deafmetal on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 02:02:15 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

        •  Children have the right to legal protection -- (4.00)
          -- for their interests and well-being and not subservient to those of the police. There are services in place to do this fairly and compassionately. Being strip searched by strange men is inappropriate and potentially damaging to the child.
          .

          Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. - Denis Diderot

          by Peanut on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:35:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  how about . . . (4.00)
            . . . by a female officer, in a private room, with mom present?

            Because that's what happened.

            •  I lounge corrected, but my concern was -- (none)
              -- that if a child is in an unsafe environment, the child (and parent) be moved to a safe environment and not treated as a potential criminal because an unfit parent is exploiting the kid.

              And that's whether a female cop or a male cop is involved in the search. (Was there some compelling reason this couldn't be done at the time?)
              .

              Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. - Denis Diderot

              by Peanut on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:43:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  No Difference (none)
              It's not about sex.
              It's about privacy.

              9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

              by NewDirection on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:04:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  fine. (none)
                If it were in the warrant itself, as opposed to an attached affidavit, would you have a problem with searching everyone in a house where you had probable cause to believe there was crystal meth?
                •  Yes. (4.00)
                  I would.
                  Probable cause does not exist.

                  The fact is contraband could be anywhere. But the Constitution, not content to merely tie the hands of government from having total authority (ie totalitarianism) puts its foot on the throat of those who would search and seize in the name of law enforcement.

                  There is one big fat reason for this which too many so called progressives are unacquainted with. It is the fact that uncompromised liberty is more precious by far than the promise of a society that is completely devoid of the potential of wrongdoing.

                  In other words, it's not about "balancing" anything. Not one ounce of unreasonable search and seizure should be placed in the scales. Not while they represent justice.

                  And by the way the law might well have agreed with me, were it not for a wingnut appointee of the first Bush.

                  9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

                  by NewDirection on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:20:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Oh And By The Way... (none)
                  ...Careful with the phrase "probable cause." You used a textbook (wikipedia) bastardization:
                  The most widely held common definition is "a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed". This definition has been criticised for being an example of circular reasoning, especially in the phrase "probable cause to believe that". In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)." "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or is backed up by other evidence.

                  In other words, if there really were probable cause that everyone in a building were likely specifically to have crystal meth, and not just some other form of contraband assumed by association, on the words of a reliable source who said "That entire building is a crystal meth factory and the workers are all mules who carry it out under their clothes," then sure.

                  But being in the same space as someone against whom a warrant is held should not make a person suspect by association.

                  9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

                  by NewDirection on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:28:23 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Excuse me? (none)
                    I am a lawyer, and if I wanted to talk about probable cause in depth, I wouldn't cite either to Wikipedia or a hornbook.
                    •  Lawyers Aren't Perfect (none)
                      If they were we wouldn't need to be having any of these discussions.

                      I don't see how the fact that you are a lawyer relieves you from the point.

                      That would be like a doctor defending a case where a second healthy breast was removed in a masectomy saying "Well what if a patient had cancer in both breasts? Wouldn't you approve of removing them both?"

                      It's irrelevant.
                      The point is that there was no probably cause against the person in question. No in my opinion.

                      9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

                      by NewDirection on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:52:20 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  please read the opinion (none)
                        "On March 6, 1998, as the result of a long-term investigation of John Doe for suspected narcotics dealing, officers of the Schuylkill County Drug Task Force ("Task Force") sought a search warrant for Doe and his residence.1 The typed affidavit in support of the warrant application stated, in pertinent part, that a reliable confidential informant had purchased methamphetamine on several occasions from John Doe, at Doe's "residence/office," or from a Volkswagen automobile parked in front. In addition, the affidavit noted that individuals with histories of prior narcotics use or with drug gang affiliations had been observed by Task Force members entering or leaving John Doe's residence. Finally, the affidavit indicated that the most recent methamphetamine purchase by the informant had occurred within the preceding 48 hours."

                        No probable cause?

        •  Read the Opinion more carefully (4.00)
          what the officers wanted was permission to search anyone on the premises, because they believed that meth purchasers might have been present when they raided the place and they wanted to nab them too.  NOTHING in the warrant mentions concealing meth on children.   Moreover, the affidavit accompanying the warrant request wouldn't have created any basis for believing so (the Probable cause consisted of 1) a Buy of meth by a CI from the house in the last 48 hours  2) that the house was frequented by "known narcotics users")

          and finally the warrant as issued didn't include the requested language giving them the right to search any other person.

          Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

          by Magorn on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:39:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  moreover, from the opinion (4.00)
        "The officers decided to search Jane and Mary Doe for contraband, and sent for the meter patrol officer. When she arrived, the female officer removed both Jane and Mary Doe to an upstairs bathroom. They were instructed to empty their pockets and lift their shirts. The female officer patted their pockets. She then told Jane and Mary Doe to drop their pants and turn around. No contraband was found. With the search completed, both Jane and Mary Doe were returned to the ground floor to await the end of the search."
        •  and you've proved... (none)
          ...WHAT, exactly?
          •  that . . . (none)
            . . . this may not have been the kind of "strip search" you're agitated about.
            •  please explain... (none)
              The distinction, as you see it.
              •  err . . . (4.00)
                . . . see below.   She was not stripped naked; it was in her own house, by a female officer, and her mother was present.
                •  She was made to (4.00)
                  take off her pants. How is this NOT stripsearch? That it was done by a female police officer, in her home with her mother has nothing to do with the fcat that it was a stripsearch.
                  •  Cavity search (none)
                    I read some of the case material.  I didn't like the drop your drawers thing either, but then again, dear old Dad was suspected of Meth pushing and Mom was either aware or not.  In either case, the child was endangered.

                    But ... why was the child made to drop the panties, unless there was a cheek spread or a cavity search?

                    This may be what the original poster and others who are irate about this case are alluding to.

                    What would have been the appropriate thing to do if you have reason to believe that a meth pusher is using his 10 year old child to conceal the stuff?  Take her to a hospital for Xray or ultrasound?  IF the drug pushers/users find that they can conceal the drugs in their child, and police have no method to determine same, the children are going to be used more and more.

                    Now, all that said, from what I've read, Alito is "to the right" of Scalia.  This is going to be a battle, but let's hope for as clean a fight as possible.

            •  If you were told to (none)
              drop your underwear, turn around and bend over, what would be going through your mind? I know I would be worried and here we are talking about a child, and an innocent child at that who was on the receiving end of an illegal strip search. Then Alito thought that there was nothing wrong with this.
              I honestly cannot see where you are coming from.
        •  Oh no!!! (2.25)
          At a drug bust, women officers were forced to search women.  What a horrible event
          •  A ten year old girl isn't an adult female (none)
            Unless you think ten year old girl pole dancers are the norm, or child cops should be strip-searching children your argument is dumb.

            Family services should have removed the child from the premises and protected the child's rights and well-being. (IMO, the kid's more important than the expediency of any evidence on the kid.)
            .

            Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. - Denis Diderot

            by Peanut on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:49:10 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So the lesson here is... (3.09)
              stash you drugs on your 10 year old daughter if there is a raid!?!

              s that it?

              When you drill down, this "issue" against Alito is crap.

              cheers,

              Mitch Gore

              Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

              by Lestatdelc on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:10:16 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, the lesson here is that kids have rights too (3.50)
                -- and shouldn't be treated as criminals for having an unfit parent.
                .
                My point is that if police thought they might find drugs on the child, they were overlooking a potentially MORE serious crime in progress: one committed against the child and should have acted accordingly to that.
                .
                (Don't know where in the heirarchy of illegality child endangerment ranks to drugs, but to me child exploitation/abuse would be of greater immediate concern.)
                .
                 

                Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. - Denis Diderot

                by Peanut on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:26:39 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Nonsense (3.25)
                  You are saying then that kids and (and should) be used as drug mules because searching them is a violation of some mythical wall in your own mind that searching minors is sexual violation, which is crap.

                  cheers,

                  Mitch Gore

                  Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                  by Lestatdelc on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:37:59 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, I'm saying their rights don't end -- (4.00)
                    -- and just because the child has been exploited BY his/her PARENTS doesn't mean the police have carte blanche to further exploit the kid.
                    .
                    If the police have reason to believe there may be drugs stashed on the child, they have every reason to believe a crime has been committed against the child and should treat the kid as a victim -- not an accessory in a drug crime.
                    .

                    Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. - Denis Diderot

                    by Peanut on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:00:23 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Jesus fucking chrsit on a crutch. (none)
                      Searching a kid who may be being used by their nominal parents to carry drugs on their body is not exploiting them.

                      cheers,

                      Mitch Gore

                      Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                      by Lestatdelc on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:56:35 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Bollocks! (none)
                        Searching a child without having a search warrant for the child, not just a search warrant for some other adult in the same location is exploiting them.

                        Not using someone with the appropriate training to perform a search or deal with a matter involving a child in a way that takes the childs rights into account, is IMHO, exploiting them.

                        I'm quite astounded at the lack of basic respect for the rights of the "innocent until proven guilty" on show here, let alone the rights of children.

                        Sheesh.

                        You want to downsize the government?
                        Fuck you. My government defends the American people.

                        by deafmetal on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:30:41 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  no (none)
                          Criminals do criminal things (what a concept).  The kids are little more than a way to get around things.  The parents have long since lost the childs best interest.  The child lost their childhood thanks to these hoods.
                          And who are you proposing to do the search? ANYONE?  If they are taken into protective services, should they not check the child, even if only for their (the childs') own protection?  
                          You gotta bring your head up for air.
                          Hating the fact that this guy is a bush nominee doesn't negate the fact you are wrong on this one.
                          •  Dude. Read the comment you're replying to again. (none)
                            I state "someone with the appropriate training" should be doing any search that involves a child.

                            I also state that my problem is with performing a search where there is no specific warrant, that's actually something that i'd have a problem with, child or no child.

                            Please read stuff before lashing out, i'm not doing this for fricking fun mate. I'm genuinely angry.

                            You want to downsize the government?
                            Fuck you. My government defends the American people.

                            by deafmetal on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:25:24 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Bollocks back at ya (none)
                          A minor in the custody of a person who is suspected of hiding drugs, does not require a separate warrant nor should it.

                          cheers,

                          Mitch Gore

                          Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                          by Lestatdelc on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 05:01:09 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Well I guess that's the crux... (none)
                            ...on which we disagree.

                            Bollocks.

                            You want to downsize the government?
                            Fuck you. My government defends the American people.

                            by deafmetal on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 05:55:28 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The Court Majority Rebukes You (none)
                            The majority on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals carefully explain in great detail in this case exactly how and why the search of the others not specified in the warrant are outside the authorized scope. A warrant specifically naming the child is required for the search of the child to be constitutionally valid.  

                            Yet you somehow seem to believe that your mere opinion trumps not just their official holding, but all of the precedents which that majority cites going right back to the 14th and 4th Amendments to the Constitution.

                            The search exceeded the authorized scope of the warrant, and is therefore held by the Court to be a violation. They are the ones charged with the authority to make that judgment, not you. This is not a matter of mere opinion, but rather a matter of law.

                            You are out of your depth.  

                             

                            The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur. -- GW Bush to PM Tony Blair Snopes "debunk": Not Persuasive

                            by PJBurke on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 08:03:13 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your interpretation of the decision is correct (none)
                            but Mitch was making a different point. He is arguing to Peanut that if the warrant had properly authorized search of all persons on the premises, there wouldn't have been required an additional warrant for persons who were also minors. Peanut seems to think either that there is such a requirement, or that there should be.
                          •  Thank you. (none)
                            That is exactly what I have been trying to convey, and pointing out that screaming that strip-searching a minor is automatically sexual exploitation and violation of a minor (which is what this entire diary is trying to paint it as) is horse-shit.

                            I have never once argued nor defended Alitos ruling on the warrant issue, which was rightly struck down. I am however calling bullshit on the specious argument that minors are sacrosanct from strip searches and to strip search them in a drug raid amounts to sexual abuse and exploitation.

                            cheers,

                            Mitch Gore

                            Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                            by Lestatdelc on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 03:06:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That'll be $5.00 (none)
                            nt
                          •  Fine. I can see the logic of your position. (none)
                            Trouble is I do happen to view "strip searching a minor" as violation, even in light of a parent being under suspicion of a drug crime.

                            The "automatic sexual exploitation" I have trouble with although because of my feelings on violating the innocence of a minor it resonates as something that is inevitable considering the framework of exactly who are promoting these legal conditions (ie: the wingnuts medieval views on women aren't that way because they are healthy sexually balanced males now are they?).

                            I also don't think that "minors are sacrosanct from strip searches", but in my opinion if a minor is going to be strip-searched there'd better be a whole shit-load of beurocracy to go through before it can be conducted.

                            That too frickin' safe for you?

                            You want to downsize the government?
                            Fuck you. My government defends the American people.

                            by deafmetal on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 07:59:33 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Ummm (4.00)
                      if the child is a victim because her parents are making her stash drugs down her jeans every time there's a knock on the door, how are the police ever going to find that out if there is no search?

                      Dear God, getting the goods on these scumbag parents IS the first step to getting that child protected.

                      If you want something other than the obvious to happen, you've got to do something other than the obvious...

                      by trillian on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:00:09 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  There's such a thing as an advocate FOR THE KID (3.00)
                        -- and the kid's rights and interests. The child isn't less important than a bag of drugs that might have been stashed, but a human being entitled to representation for his/her legal interests.
                        .
                        As was pointed out elsewhere, the kid wasn't there to score, and if she has the misfortune to be in a meth house, the fact that family services didn't remove her before the drug bust -- so THAT's reason enough to roust her with the adults -- places the unfair onus on the child to contact family services herself. It's ridiculous.
                        .

                        Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. - Denis Diderot

                        by Peanut on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:12:04 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  yeah, advocate (none)
                          will they allow or perform the search?

                          My kids diaper was checked when the family ws flying overseas not 3 years ago.  We weren't caught in a meth house (their own home by the way)we were at an airport, of course you can't profile based upon who 99.7% of who are committing terrorist acts.

                          Where wre the child advocates?  Damn I got screwed due to political correctness.  I want restitution!  I want to bring the TAS to it's knees!

                      •  What is more dangerous to our society?? (4.00)
                        A kid who may or may not have drugs planted on her OR
                        A police force in which officers may strip search our kids if they suspect something illegal of us.

                        I cannot believe that anyone here does not think that allowing the search of a child when the warrant was for the father is not a very, very serious violation of that child's rights.

                        "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

                        by adigal on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:08:27 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

              •  Nice ratings abuse detroitmechworks (4.00)
                A fucking ZERO for that?

                I am a "troll"...?

                Fucking absolutely pathetic detroitmechworks.

                cheers,

                Mitch Gore

                Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                by Lestatdelc on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:36:31 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Check my ratings.. (1.33)
                  I don't toss troll rates indiscriminately.

                  You got a troll rating for me for being rude and calling the other person's point crap.

                  That's not discussion, that's trolling, IMHO.

                  And by your calling me names, you confirm my point.  Other people agreed with your tactics, I didn't. That's why the rating system is set up so 1 zero won't submarine you.

                  Accept that not everyone will agree and move on.

                  Suspicion is Guilt. As long as you aren't a Republican White Male.

                  by detroitmechworks on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:27:08 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  He's not a troll (none)
                    and you know it. The point of troll ratings is to kill trolls, not to browbeat members of teh community.

                    Come get lost in our world: www.politicsandletters.com

                    by MonkeyDog102 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 03:18:29 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  So now calling someone's point crap (none)
                    is "troll" behavior?

                    That is beyond fucking nuts.

                    So disagree with someone and call there argument crap, and you are a troll.

                    You have GOT to be fucking kidding me.

                    That sets the gold standard for lame-ass argument to try and defend ratings abuse.

                    Better toss some more zeros on this post too, because I am calling your arguments here fucking bat-shit crazy.

                    cheers,

                    Mitch Gore

                    Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                    by Lestatdelc on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 05:06:11 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Say what you like (none)
                      Everyone agrees with you, so I won't argue.  

                      There's no point continuing a discussion when it's turning into an ego war.

                      If you want a retraction on the zero, fine.  I'll change it to a one, because I consider it very unproductive, not unlike this post.  

                      And in my opinion, troll behavior is deliberately writing a comment designed to attract flames. But since everyone seems to think that a member of the "community" can't ever possibly troll, I'll make sure that I don't ever step on your toes again.

                      I'm done.  I'd appreciate it if you don't retaliate by zeroing all my comments today, but you will do what you like.  

                      Suspicion is Guilt. As long as you aren't a Republican White Male.

                      by detroitmechworks on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 05:44:01 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I haven't rated ANY of your comments ever (none)
                        let alone rating them a zero today, or any other day. So please punch some other fictional strawman.

                        BTW, despite your bizarre-world mind reading abilities, I don't write things with a design to flame war anything.

                        Also, nobody, least of all me, thinks that people posting here can't ever be trolls. Another great specious and fraudulent argument you rail against which nobody is making. Not to make it about ego as you say it, but it stems more form the fact that I have been here on this site for years and many people here know me.

                        DO I cuss like a sailor? You bet.

                        Do I passionately argue? Absolutely.

                        DO I type like someone with boxing gloves on at times (i.e. lots of typos and errors of grammar and spelling)..? Sadly yes.

                        But I am hardly a troll by any legitimate criterion.

                        cheers,

                        Mitch Gore

                        Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                        by Lestatdelc on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 02:57:31 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Wasn't trying to make a strawman. (none)
                          Just asking that you not engage in behavior that I'm used to on message boards.

                          Since you didn't, I appreciate it.  Thank you.

                          And yes I'm new.  So sorry, I didn't know about your track record.  I did withdraw my zero, and since you've explained your side of it, I do regret my error.

                          Detente?

                          Suspicion is Guilt. As long as you aren't a Republican White Male.

                          by detroitmechworks on Wed Nov 02, 2005 at 05:29:10 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  FYI... (none)
                    please cite where I called you names.

                    Specifically.

                    cheers,

                    Mitch Gore

                    Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                    by Lestatdelc on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 05:06:53 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You said. (none)
                      Fucking absolutely pathetic detroitmechworks.

                      That's one name with two modifiers, in my opinion.

                      But perhaps you were referring to my rating, in which case it's still a bit insulting since you seem to feel that I put no thought into it.  However, once again, you have ten people who seem to feel I'm a jerk because of ONE rating.

                      If that's all it takes to bring down the wrath of the "community" then I happily leave.

                      Rate this comment a zero if you'd like me to just go away forever and allow you and your friends to stroke your egos.

                      Suspicion is Guilt. As long as you aren't a Republican White Male.

                      by detroitmechworks on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 05:51:50 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Community norms (none)
                        Learn em, live em, love em.

                        That's your job.

                      •  Your ratings abuse is fucking pathetic (none)
                        ...as is your persecution complex (particularly since I have never rated a single of your comments ever).

                        A zero for the comment in question you rated was ratings abuse no matter the level of thought you gave it. Pure and simple.

                        cheers,

                        Mitch Gore

                        Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                        by Lestatdelc on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 03:00:34 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  All right... (none)
                          I'll be an adult here and state that I was wrong according to the standards here.

                          I'm not going to respond to the personal comments, in the hope of a bit of detente here.

                          I still feel that my original thought was correct, however I am willing to apologize if you are truly offended.  (The last thing we all need is enemies when we're close at least to the same side...)

                          Sorry.

                          If that's still considered abuse after my retraction and apology for violating the norms, I have nothing else to say.

                          Suspicion is Guilt. As long as you aren't a Republican White Male.

                          by detroitmechworks on Wed Nov 02, 2005 at 05:37:11 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

              •  Mitch. You're really dumb. (none)
                Look at the actual case dumbass. Alito is not trying to establish some precedent that protects children and goes after drug users. The case is about protecting officers from a law suit that alleges they failed to follow the warrant. They clearly failed and Alito's reasoning is alarmingly atrocious.

                He claims that the warrant should be construed broadly since there wasn't enough space in some of the fields and since the cops who wrote it wanted to search more people, even though they didn't write that in. Unbelievable circular reasoning!

                Your argument that this search is warranted because otherwise children will be used as drug mules is ridiculous as well, and completely at odds with the fourth amendment. Moreover the facts of the case say that Mr. Doe was pulled form outside, so there was no reasonable way to think he put drugs up his little girl's ass. But again this isn;t the issue.

                •  I am a dumbass... (none)
                  ...because I was rejecting the horse-shit argument that Alito is condoning the police exploitation of minors by strip searching them?

                  Get real.

                  I agree that the "not enough space" argument is specious, but that is not what is being argued in this thread.

                  And if you think that minors are NOT used to hide drugs on their persons by parents and drug smugglers, etc. then you are deluding yourself. It happens all the time.

                  Argue that Alito is eroding protections by too widely giving latitude to warants, and I can agree with it. This screaming that somehow a minor is sacrosanct from searches because they are minors and strip-searching them is always wrong, is beyond bullshit.

                  cheers,

                  Mitch Gore

                  Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                  by Lestatdelc on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 05:12:29 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes (none)
                    Because traumatizing a child is SO worth this fucked up, unwinnable, asinine "war on drugs" bullshit that the conservatives have shoved down the country's throat.  Yes, it is a great day when people on the left go around thumping their chests about how empowering the fucking police to force a young child to pull down her pants at their discretion is a great thing.  What a crock of horseshit, and what a fucked up value system this entire country now has.
                    •  Try reading again (none)
                      I have explicitly stated that the "war on drugs" is counter-productive and bullshit. But claiming that Alito condones explotation of minors and sexual harassment therein because of a strip-search is beyond pathetic.

                      cheers,

                      Mitch Gore

                      Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                      by Lestatdelc on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 02:43:00 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Nice Try (none)
                        Throw up the completely fabricated notion that the diarist is arguing that Alito condones "exploitation of minors and sexual harassment," and then knock it out of the park.  Bravo.

                        Meanwhile, back here in the real world, the diarist's point - as made perfectly clear by the update - is that any ruling that would give the police unchecked discretion to traumatize a 10-year old girl in the name of something so ludicrous as the "war on drugs" is a disgusting, disgraceful perversion of justice.  And it reflects a value system that is fucked up beyond belief - especially when people on the left are all too happy to oblige and make excuses.  

                        And yes, let's talk about the fact that you have elsewhere acknowledged that the war on drugs is bullshit - a fact that makes your argument here even more ludicrous.  So basically, in the name of a campaign that you admit is completely fucked up, you are all too ready to give the police the discretion to freely engage in conduct that will have real-world traumatizing consequences for a real-world little girl.  Brilliant.

                        You know, if you want to contribute to giving the police oppressive powers and doing violence to the psyches of young children, you could at least limit the instances in which you proudly lobby for this to things that you actually fucking believe in.  And you want to lecture the rest of us about what's pathetic?    

                        •  Try reading the posts I am responding to (none)
                          and the numerous comments stating just that.

                          I didn't fabricate anything.

                          Nice lying.

                          cheers,

                          Mitch Gore

                          Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                          by Lestatdelc on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 10:46:37 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Try Re-reading... (none)
                            All of your hundred other posts in this thread, making the same inane argument over and over again.  And keep ignoring the absurdity of your position, and the fact that you are arguing for giving invasive powers to the police in support of a "war" that you think is asinine.

                            Nice dodging of the issue.

                          •  Wrong (none)
                            I am responding to the BS assertion that strip-searching a minor is sexual exploitation and abuse. Which is horse-shit.

                            Furthermore I defy you to point to any post of mine where I argued for giving invasive powers to the police for the drug war.

                            I haven't dodge any issues, I have been focused form the the get-go on the lame "sexual exploitation of minors" hysteronic and disingenuous framing of the argument.

                            Argue that there warrant was bad and I am right with you, and the courts which correctly over-ruled Alito. THAT is the issue that matters. This lame-o dishonest "strip search a minor and sexually scaring them!" crap is what I am calling BS on. Because it is crap.

                            cheers,

                            Mitch Gore

                            Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                            by Lestatdelc on Wed Nov 02, 2005 at 05:27:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  It was an illegal strip search (none)
                    •  For adult or minor (none)
                      because of the lack of scope of the warrant, not because the minor was under the age of 18.

                      The fact the child was a minor is wholly irrelevant and disingenuous scare-tactic argument.

                      cheers,

                      Mitch Gore

                      Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                      by Lestatdelc on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 02:44:50 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Irrelevant (none)
                    Whether minors are used to hide drugs or not is irrelevant.  

                    The search was not authorized by the warrant; the presumption in the law, as noted by the majority,  is that the magistrate intentionally limited the authorized scope by not specifically incorporating the affidavit by reference, and did so because Pennsylvania law "disfavors all-occupant searches." The search was illegal.

                    That one of the violated citizens in this case happened to be a minor child only makes the abuse of authority that much more egregious, offensive, and repugnant.

                    That Alito would condone even this outcome of a police task force unrestrained by the very law which they are sworn to uphold and defend ought to be seen as shocking and outrageous.

                    The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur. -- GW Bush to PM Tony Blair Snopes "debunk": Not Persuasive

                    by PJBurke on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 08:27:06 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not argugin that point. (none)
                      The warrant is either valid or not, but the scare argument about the minor is a red herring of the highest order. If the warrant is not valid, it is not valid.

                      The screaming lunacy that this is condoning the lurid sexual exploitation of minors by subjecting them to strip searches is horse-shit.

                      If the warrant stated to search anyone on the premises, there would be no bad warrant and everyone, including the minor would be rightly searched (regardless of whether the larger question of the War on Drugs being legitimate or not.. I personally think it is not legitimate).

                      cheers,

                      Mitch Gore

                      Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                      by Lestatdelc on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 02:47:32 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Agree in Part, but (none)
                        The screaming lunacy that this is condoning the lurid sexual exploitation of minors by subjecting them to strip searches is horse-shit.

                        Yes.  And further, going there really insults police officers also.

                        However, this is an important point upon which I, and the 3rd Circuit, disagree with you:

                        If the warrant stated to search anyone on the premises, there would be no bad warrant and everyone, including the minor would be rightly searched

                        Such "all occupant warrants" are not usually granted (particularly in Pennsylvania), and are generally held to lack the specificity required by the Fourth Amendment.  As the Court stated in this  case:

                        "...A state magistrate reviewing a search warrant affidavit might well draw the line at including unnamed "all occupants" in the affidavit because Pennsylvania law disfavors "all occupant" warrants. See Commonwealth v. Gilliam, 560 A.2d 140, 142 (Pa. 1989). ..."



                        The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur. -- GW Bush to PM Tony Blair Snopes "debunk": Not Persuasive

                        by PJBurke on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 05:24:07 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

        •  Why wasn't the child perceived as a victim -- (4.00)
          -- of a separate and perhaps more serious crime (neglect, child endangerment) in progress rather than treated as a co-criminal?
          .
          Surely that's an issue for consideration at the site, or was this a case where 'youthful indescretion' is more an issue of color/economic class than age.
          .
          (eg, Bush was 'youthfully indiscreet' well into middle age, but adolescent black kids carry the burden of adult responsibility.)
          .

          Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. - Denis Diderot

          by Peanut on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:13:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Understand that... (4.00)
        But does that mean that babies in diapers are sacrosanct suitcases for carrying drugs?

        Ever heard of people transporting drugs in a babies diaper?

        Of course the war on drugs (always found the wording of that comical, like soldiers are getting high before the war) is an abysmal, counter-productive fraud, but I digress.

        cheers,

        Mitch Gore

        Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

        by Lestatdelc on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:06:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  McCarthy, is that you? (none)

        Never one to let the facts get in the way of a good argument, eh?

    •  What the hell are you doing posting (4.00)
      facts here to refute our righteous anger. What do you think this is, a reality based community?

      :)

    •  Notice the name of one of the other Judges? (none)
      Did you notice who the third of the three judges was on this opinion?


      Argued September 15,2003

      Before: ALITO AMBRO and CHERTOFF
      Circuit Judges

      yes it is That Judge Chertoff, Brownie's Boss, Current Director of DHS.

      Nice to Know the man in charge of the largest surveillance and law enforcement bureaucracy in the country has a similarly expansive view of our civil liberties and right to privacy no?

      Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

      by Magorn on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:06:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So the affidavit... (4.00)
      ...asked specifically for permission to search everyone in the house, and warned that they might conceal drugs on their person. But the warrant did not cross-reference the affadavit, and listed onlt the homeowner.

      The ruling said that the affadavit, which was attached to the warrant, provided sufficient authority, despite the seeming clerical error.

      Have I got that right?

      I've got blisters on my fingers!

      by Elwood Dowd on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:09:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Other way around (4.00)
        The majority went by the warrant itself, which only named John Doe himself; Alito's dissent said to look at the more detailed affidavit as well, which explained the need to search the occupants.
        •  Even more specifically (4.00)
          Alito's dissent said that it was not unreasonable for the officers to assume that the warrant extended to those persons specifically mentioned in the affidavit/application attached to the warrant and for whom the affidavit/application specifically asked permission to search.  And that therefore those officers who did search the woman and the girl, should not lose their immunity.  The same arguments applied to both the girl and her mother.  

          READ the actual case people; not just the blurb.  I am sure there are plenty of reasons not to like Alito but all this hysteria based on little or no facts or knowledge of the actual case itself is just ridiculous.

          If you want something other than the obvious to happen, you've got to do something other than the obvious...

          by trillian on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:45:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You'e wrong trillian. (4.00)
            Look at his actual reaosning.

            Alito is not "in favor" of strip searching 10 year olds, so I agree that that's not what this case is about. But his reasoning is completely atrocious. It's indefensible legally. And he cites NOTHING in his support.

            He uses circular reasoning based on the intent of the cops (!?) and how the naming of only John Doe takes up the whole space of the field on the warrant.

            There is no precedent that allow you to look at the affidavit to EXPAND the warrant. Chertoff deals with that in the majority opinion. The warrant is not some loose document that can be thrown around. The 4th amendment's langaueg is very clear about specifics.

            And it's not a clerical error!
            That is the dumbest thing someone could possibly say. Most likely the cops wrote it that way knowing they could use the "ran out of space" argument, and still get the magistrate to ok it cuz it only named one person. Even if it was a clerical error the actual wording of the warrant must be controlling.

            His reasoning is just atrocious!

          •  Read The Actual Case, Not Just The Dissent (none)
            "Not unreasonable for the officers to assume..."

            Who do you think has the authority to issue warrants, the police or the magistrate?  

            Allowing police officers that degree of discretion -- to just assume that the allowable scope extends to cover the "wish list" in their warrant application -- transfers an important aspect of the warrant-granting authority from magistrate to police officer.  Which is what makes it completely unreasonable for police to assume that they can just expand the scope of a warrant at will.

            This was covered in detail within the majority opinion... which is where you will find the controlling law, not in the dissent.  

            The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur. -- GW Bush to PM Tony Blair Snopes "debunk": Not Persuasive

            by PJBurke on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 06:32:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Not Quite (4.00)
        the "other Persons" contemplated in the affidavit did NOT include a 10 yr old girl.  TO be specific:

        The search should include all occupants of the house as the information  developed shows that [Doe] has frequent visitors who purchase methamphetamine. These persons may be on the premises at the time of the execution of the search warrant and may attempt to conceal controlled substances on their persons

        Anybody think the 10 yr old was in the house scoring?  No?  Well then she would have been excluded from this search authority had it even been granted. (AND by the by, even had this authority been granted; the constitutionality of such a warrant would be highly suspect.  This is because A) it would  fail to name the person or thing to be searched with specificity  and B) would have lacked a showing of probable cause as to the specific person being searched)

        okay now let's move to the second part of the request.

        This application seeks permission to search all ocupants of the residence and their belongings to prevent removal, concealment or destruction of the evidence sought in the warrant.  It is the experience of you co-affiants, the drug dealers often attempt to do so when faced with impending apprehension and may give such evidence to persons who do not reside {at}or own/rent the premises.  This is done to prevent the discovery of said items in the hopes that said persons will not be subject to search when the police arrive

        again the mother and child, as they reside on the premises do not meet the criteria of the second group of people the police wish to search.  Moreover, the italicized sentence makes it crystal clear that the police understand they are NOT allowed to conduct such searches absent special permission

        Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

        by Magorn on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:55:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  well... (none)
          by my reading that just means that the drug dealers falseley believe that people who do not live in the house are immune from being searched.  And thats why  it is important to be able to search everyone in the house.  
          •  i can't believe we're having this argument (4.00)
            so the fact that a mother has shown such poor judgement and character, bordering on criminal, certainly unethical, and exposed her child to the ugliness of drug abuse/use/dealing means that that child is fair game for the police to further violate?

            i don't get it.

        •  Your argument (none)
          rests on there being an plain common sense and widely agreed to distinction between an occupant and a resident which does not exist.

          But at least you read the case.

          If you want something other than the obvious to happen, you've got to do something other than the obvious...

          by trillian on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:28:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The officers (none)
            in the affidavit made this distinction, not me.  And recall this is all hypothetical because that's merely what the officers sought not what they were granted by the court.   I don't believe the "good-faith exception"  should protect officers when their good faith comes soely from willfully misunderstanding, or not having read, a warrant.

            Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

            by Magorn on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:38:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually (4.00)
              If they requested permission to search all occupants but only received permission to search one man, how can anyone construe that as permission to search all occupants?

              Police: "Can we search all occupants?"
              Judge:  "No, just the one man."
              Police: "Ok, thanks. We'll take that as a yes."

              I haven't read the case but the above sounds like the logic I am hearing in these comments.

              It's seems the police have a better argument (but it should still be a losing argument) if they had not asked permission in the first place.  They asked and were denied.

              Television is the opiate of the masses.

              by i dunno on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 02:37:15 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Of course you made that up (none)
                They submitted paperwork that requested searching the other inhabitants in one place and in another put a shorter description.  The magistrate signed the document.  There is no evidence that the magistrate in any way indicated an intention to limit the search.  Had such a statement been made, in any way, it would have been definitive and would have been presented to the appellate court.
                •  Of course they made it up (none)
                  They had a document that did not give them the right to search the others.

                  They acted as if it did.  They got called on it.  Alito thinks that is dandy.

                  And, that is what my words above mean.

                  Think that is a silly for me to argue, after the fact, that my words mean something different than I wrote?  Well, that is the position of the cops and Alito in this case.

                  Television is the opiate of the masses.

                  by i dunno on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 04:56:07 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  That distinction (none)
            between "occupant" and "resident" is well known, understood, and accepted.  

            The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur. -- GW Bush to PM Tony Blair Snopes "debunk": Not Persuasive

            by PJBurke on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 06:40:26 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Majority stated that warrant only covered husband (4.00)
        They went over this with a finetooth comb. The affadavit was referred to on the face of the warrant in other blocks, but not in the block about person(s):
        In this case, there is no language in the warrant that suggests that the premises or people to be searched include Jane Doe, Mary Doe, "all occupants" or anybody else, save John Doe himself. Other portions of the face sheet which describe the date of the violation and the supporting probable cause do refer to the attached typed affidavit. But this fact is actually unhelpful to the officers, since it demonstrates that where the facesheet was intended to incorporate the affidavit, it said so explicitly. As a matter of commonsense, as well as logic, the absence of a reference to the affidavit must therefore be viewed as negating any incorporation of that affidavit.

        They also note that under Pennsylvania law, as well as settled Supreme Court decisions, "A search warrant for a premises does not constitute a license to search everyone inside. Ybarra v.Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979)."

        Alito, in his lone dissent, insisted that the search of all persons found on the premises was allowed by the warrant, as in the Probable Cause section the affadvit was referred to, and the affadavit stated the desire to search all persons there:

        In my view, the appropriateness of "words of incorporation" is to be judged by the "commonsense and realistic" standard that is generally to be used in interpreting warrants. The majority, however, reads the warrant in this case almost as if it were a contract subject tothe doctrine of contra proferentum. Groh does not justify such an approach.

        The police stated that they didn't add anyone else to the face of the actual warrant because there was not enough room to list everyone that could possibly be there. Alito agreed, basically allowing them to expand the search in what they believed to be "commonsense and realistic" way.

        I find that rather troubling, as it puts even more pressure on our 4th Amendment rights, especially in view of the sure to be forthcoming fights over various provisions of the Patriot Act. Alito seems to be pulling back somewhat from the language stating that wa warrant must be "...particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." and towards allowing police on the scene to interpret a search warrant in a "commomsense and realistic" way.

        As one who has watched a police officer perjure himself in a matter as simple as a speeding ticket, this is troubling.

        "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

        by bewert on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:23:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is just intellectually dishonest (4.00)
          It is not as if the only thing the police had was the face of the warrant and then decided to expand it in a common sense and realistic way.

          What they had was warrant with an warrant application/affidavit attached, a warrant that actually referred to the attached application/affidavit, but which reference lacked two magic legalistic words "incorporated herein".  And Alito decided that looking at the warrant in a common sense and realistic way (which case law requires as warrants are often prepared and interpreted by other than lawyers)that it was not unreasonable for the officers to conclude that they were free to search the persons covered by the affidavit, i.e. that the warrant included the attached affidavit.

          You may not agree.  Chertoff didn't. But I don't see how it is an unreasonable, much less degenerate position.  The hysteria is unbecoming.

          If you want something other than the obvious to happen, you've got to do something other than the obvious...

          by trillian on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:37:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry, I agree with Chertoff on this one (none)
            The fact that the warrant did not specifically incorporate the affadavit limited the warrant to it's face on the subject of the person(s) that could be searched. What is intellectually dishonest about that position? The law rests on such specificity.

            I didn't call him a degenerate. Please note that Alito stated the he is a viscerally disgusted by the idea of strip searching a ten-year old girl as anyone else.

            My belief is that this dissenting opinion is yet another brick taken from the wall of the 4th Amendment, something that has come under incredible attack with the passing of the Patriot Act.

            "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

            by bewert on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:30:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  And that (none)
              Is a legitimate point for discussion.  All of this child-molester stuff is hysteria.
              •  You ignore (none)
                the willful disregard for the wellbeing of an innocent and uninvolved child.

                Alito's side remarks about his disgust are invalid. Actually they are even damaging - he knew what harm such a judgement would do, and argued for it nonetheless, exposing his hypocrisy.  

                We are all responsible for the real and forseeable consequences our actions will have.

                Theory doesn't count. Reality does.

                Principles don't count. Consequences do.

                If you know your actions will harm someone, directly or indirectly, you could as well harm him or her with your own hands.

                •  As well he should (none)
                  The point of being an appellate judge is to rule on a specific point of law.  The point of law in question had nothing to do with the manner in which the child was searched.  The point of law had to do with the validity of the officers assumption that they were acting reasonably and within the bounds of the search warrent they requested.

                  The majority decision had nothing to do with the appropriateness of searching the child.  In the majority opinion, the mother and the child were equal -- they were not named on the cover sheet.

                  •  should he ? (none)
                    The point of being an appellate judge is to rule on a specific point of law.

                    The point of beeing a human beeing is having been given (by evolution, God or both) a brain capable of predicting and evaluating the consequences of our actions. With this comes the responsibility for those consequences, and the duty to act according to that responsibility.

                    I am told by competent jurists that Roland Freisler actually was an excellent jurist, too. As the example amply illustrates, that proved to be a secondary virtue.

                    •  But a judge is not a dictator (none)
                      His job is not to ignore the law or the points of law before him and do 'what he thinks is best'.  He has a specific task with limitations that he must abide by.

                      In any case, he didn't approve the search of the child, that had already been done.  The only issue before the apellate court was if the police officers reasonably expected that they were authorized to conduct the search.

                      It was the police officers who were the defendents.

            •  I have no bones (none)
              with your position that warrant should have specifically incorporated the affidavit - I may even agree.  

              What I think is intellectually dishonest is implying that Alito was all for expanding the search warrant in the discretion of the officers to whomever they chose as long as it was done in a common sense and realistic way.  When you talk about expanding the warrant you never mention that it was about expanding the warrant specifically to the attached affidavit.  That is not the same thing.  There is no right to expand a warrant off the four corners and I don't think Alito has said anything to disagree.  Here the question was want fell within the four corners.

              Regardless, an appropriate 4th amendment discuss is called for here not hysterics laden with sexual innuendo (of which you are not guilty but numerous posters and the diarist are).

              If you want something other than the obvious to happen, you've got to do something other than the obvious...

              by trillian on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:11:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Agreed on the four corners question (none)
                I agree that the discussion is about what legitimately falls within the four corners of the warrant. I disagree that the affadavit is implicitly included in its entirety. I believe it must be explictly included, whether in part or in whole. The warrant is explicitly included in part, but not in whole.

                My worry is that decisions like this chip away at our 4th Amendment rights. These have really taken a beating under BushCo. The next little step is to allow the four corners to hold an attached affadavit when it is referred to even less in the actual warrant. And then not at all--it will need only to be attached to the warrant. This may seem like a great leap now, but it may not after a few more years of the Wars on Terror and Drugs.

                At this point the police will have greater power than the magistrate when it comes to the actual actions taken during service of said warrants when it can be seen as "commonsense and realistic". Those very words make me uncomfortable, as they may be construed in very different ways by different people.

                "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

                by bewert on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:33:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Well (4.00)
                Trillian, Alito is clearly expanding the meaning of common sense and realistic to consider the intent of the police officers who filed the affidavit! He actually argued that the warrant's limited space means officer would have included more names and therefore since they WOULD have, the warrant can be interpetted as though they did.

                In as much as this is a civil case, this is a chipping away at our 4th amendment rights and a total divergence from precedent. He cites NOTHING!! The warrant must be contrued in a clear manner when it speaks clearly. It says "we will be searching person X" as the BASIS for probably cause it says "other people often are given drugs." Those two things can not be added to equal "We can search anyone in the house." Otherwise you are supporting a rather loose approach to what has been a very technical area of the law.

                The 4th amendment has numerous strange technicalities and complexities, that often cases can be taken advantage of by criminals and police (to give an example of the latter, there is the case of waiting until a suspect puts a suspicious item in a car before searching - no warrant required!). Alito wants to protect officers who interpret a warrant based on their own intentions, or what the attached affidavit says!? No. It doesn;t work that way. Read it, follow it, or take the risk. This is the 4th amendment - a fundamental right. We don't just right out warrants and have them signed by neutral and detached magistrates for shits and giggles.

          •  The controlling presumption is (none)
            that unless specifically incorporated by explicit reference to that effect, it is excluded. End of story.  

            The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur. -- GW Bush to PM Tony Blair Snopes "debunk": Not Persuasive

            by PJBurke on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 06:43:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Oh it makes perfect sense (3.00)
      <Republican worldview> Clearly, all drug users are minorites.  And minorities aren't REAL humans, no matter what those liberals say.  They need strong fatherly behavior to keep them from being violent and strung-out.  Oh and particularly the children-- a ten year old could only be in her father's house to buy drugs, of course. </Republican idiocy>

      "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

      by ChicagoDem on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:15:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  V. interesting link, thanks! (none)
      Say, in part, "there is no language in the warrant that suggests that the premises or people to be searched include Jane Doe, Mary Doe, "all occupants" or anybody else, save John Doe himself."

      The 'all occupants' statement was part of an unincorporated affidavit which, if I follow correctly (and IANAL), is meant not to expand but to focus the warrant. The majoriy (I think), says, "What is significant is that the officers can point to no precedent that allowed an unincorporated affidavit to expand a search warrant.  Although there are decisions that allow unincorporated affidavits to clarify or narrow overbroad warrants, we have explained at considerable length why these are a totally different matter."

      So the language in the warrant about the person being searched being just John Doe and his house overrules the unincorporated affidavit, no?

      And all that's kinda beside the point. Chumley's (useful) outrage is the point.

      Let there be sharks - TracieLynn

      by GussieFN on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:17:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well . . . (none)
        . . . my point is that it's all a technicality -- had the affidavit been incorporated, I don't think there'd be any issue whatsoever.
        •  But the sort of technicality (4.00)
          upon which a great deal of our rights rest, no? If law enforcement officers don't get legal permission to search (and, per the document, 'touch') my 10 year old daughter, and they just 'decide' to do so ... that is NOT OKAY!

          Sure, if they were legally allowed, they were legally allowed. But, follow closely, they were not allowed!

          So what you have here is some law enforcement officers--who, perhaps unlike some at this site I have an immediate respect for, and who I'm sure contribute a helluvalot more to this country that most of us, and certainly than drug-dealers--extra-legally decided to have a child strip-searched. (And detained, in the bathroom and the basement? I couldn't quite follow that.)

          And Alito says: hey, fine, you don't need permission to strip-search the children of scumbags, knock yourselves out! That's an outrage, to me, and I think chumley's anger is not only genuine but (to my manipulative mind) incredily politically powerful.

          Let there be sharks - TracieLynn

          by GussieFN on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:28:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes but (4.00)
          Police often ask for the Sun in their affidavits and are only granted the moon.  That's the whole point of judicial review of warrants.  The dispassionate judge is supposed to weigh the police's need for the warrant against the suspect's 4th amendment rights and issue a narrowly focused warrant that will vindicate both those interests.   in this case the police asked for something, were denied, and then did it anyway.

          IN Sam Alito's world, police that violate the law, and ignore judicial instructions, should nonetheless be immune from any consequences of those bad acts.   What's more, Sammy thinks as a general rule police should have a right to conduct whatever search they wish on you, if you are unlucky enough to be visiting someone who is the target of a search warrant
          .

          Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

          by Magorn on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:10:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thank you (none)
            I have waded through this interminable thread to find one person who gets the point.

            Including "incorporated herein" would have given the magistrate the power to look at the random array of persons vaguely referenced in the affadavit, and said, "Um, no."

            Instead, Alito takes the position that such judicial review is a mere technicality. Many Dems here agree with him.

    •  Customers... (4.00)
      Not his family members, unless it was interpreted that they were also his customers.  I'm not sure that can be assumed.  If they were showing obvious signs of meth addiction and/or use, there MIGHT be a basis.

      As an attorney, what is your interpretation of this?

      "My job is to protect the American people." George W. Bush. Did he?

      by PAprogressive on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:35:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Look (none)
      I admit that the "Alito wants to strip search ten year old girls" meme is a little unfair, but were playing by Calvinball rules now - thank you Karl Rove.

      On a more substantive note, just because the police ask to search a person in an affidavidt, does not grant them authority to search that person, that can only come from the judge approving the warrant.

      Read the majority opinion, here the warrant itself only specified John Doe as the person to be searched therefore that is all they were authorized to do.  

    •  No (none)
      the warrant did not say that. The affidavit said that, but as the ruling pointed out the affidavit is not the same thing as the warrant.
  •  Recommended. Your anger is a reflection... (4.00)
    ...of how so many of us feel.

    When I heard Scalito had been smirkingly nominated by that un-man Bush, I was physically sick.

    I find it so incomprehensible that there can even be a recognized minority of american citizens who support and believe in the ideology of men like Scalito! How can these people continue to exist in a society as apparently free as the USA?

    I simply don't get it.

    If anyone does, please explain.

    You want to downsize the government?
    Fuck you. My government defends the American people.

    by deafmetal on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 07:56:55 AM PST

    •  NOT recommended (4.00)
      ...Because while opposing Alito's nomination on ideological grounds is reasonable, this diary misrepresents the facts of a case in order to charge sexual misconduct where there is none. --M

      Enjoy reading The Proxies, a free crime thriller in short story form.

      by maynard on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:56:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Please elaborate. n/t (none)
      •  I agree (4.00)
        Why are Alito and the officers involved in this bust being called "perverts"? Is someone imagining them Gestapo-like child molesters slavering lasciviously while stripping and groping a little girl? Is there any reason to think this case is about sexual misconduct?

        Patriot Act privacy violations, possibly, that should be brought to our attention. Pedophilia, no.

        I detest Alita as all of us do, but the hyperbole and hysterical tone in these posts makes me uncomfortable.

        I SAID IT MAKES ME FUCKIN NERVOUS THIS FOAMIN MOUTH OVER THE TOP SHIT, SO FUK YOU IF YA DONT LIKE IT!!!

        •  Strip searching ten year olds is NOT perverse? (4.00)
          Just because it's not personally lascivious doesn't mean that it's not perverse.  

          Woody Guthrie wrote, "Some men will rob you with a six gun, and some with a fountain pen."

          Similarly, some men will abuse 10 year old children directly with indecent touching, and some by terrorizing them under the color of authority (or by legitmating such terror as if it were acceptable).

          Children's egos are fragile.  If society won't protect its children, we are all doomed.

          Call it state terror, call it Nazism, call it what you will.  But if you don't give a shit, don't tell us liberals to shut up about it.

          •  That's crap~ (none)
            The label "pervert" denotes a sexually twisted individual. It's a deceptive and sloppy word to use for this issue. "Little Green Footballs" and "RedState" are noted for such mental and verbal sloppiness, not liberal bloggers.  

            You mean "child abuser"--not "pervert" or "degenerate".  

  •  Framing (4.00)
    The argument should be framed that not only is he a fringe, right wing lunatic but he is an activist judge who goes against settle law and has been criticized by his fellow judges.  Tell Bush to try again and get it right this time.

    It is time for a fight and this is it.  

    •  excellent (4.00)
      On both points:

      1. He's a fringe rightwing freak.

      2. His fellow judges think very poorly of him.

      Make Bush and company defend this perverted lunatic's and his indefensible record, in detail.
      •  Concur and amplify... (none)
        The story could read this way:

        Circuit Judge Michael Chertoff, in a harbinger of his future role as Homeland Security Chief, protected that very homeland security by rebuking an "off the reservation" and "out of the mainstream" fellow judge -- Samuel Alito -- who would blithely condone the unrestrained search-and-seizure freelancing by police looking for drugs... up to and including a warrantless, panties-dropping strip-search of a ten-year-old girl, which Alito argued is "commonsense and realistic."


        The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur. -- GW Bush to PM Tony Blair Snopes "debunk": Not Persuasive

        by PJBurke on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 08:59:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  "Get it right this time" (4.00)
      Yes, this emphasizes all the times he's got it WRONG !  We want it burned into people's heads:  Bush Can't Be Trusted.  Period.
    •  Bush the Flip-Flopper (none)

      Bush caved into the radical right.

      Bush is a weak coward.

  •  My God. (3.14)
    He's the Bork of my generation.

    If this bastard isn't stopped, I'm taking my powder and going home.

    Jumping on the politicalcompass.org bandwagon: (-3.63, -3.03) - Does that make me part of the right wing here?

    by someone else on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:00:46 AM PST

    •  Very few deserve to be compared to Bork (none)
      And Judge Alito is not one of them, at least not yet.  Judge Alito, unlike Judge/Professor Bork, does not believe the 9th amendment is "ink blot," and believes in all parts of the Constitution have equal and important roles to play, for example.  Judge Alito, also unlike Judge/Professor Bork, does not believe the Bill of Rights can be nullified by a majority of Congress by advocating a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to overturn a Supreme Court decision by a majority vote.  You, most Kossacks, and I may not agree with much, if any, of Judge Alito's jurisprudence, but Judge Alito is not Judge/Prof. Bork -- yet.

      The quest for freedom, dignity, and the rights of man will never end. - Justice Brennan

      by jim bow on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 10:31:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wait a sec... (4.00)
    You mean strip-searching on 10 year olds isn't common practice in this country?

    I have to go have a word with my priest...

    •  :: cough :: He may be the wrong person to ask -- (none)
      -- about the well-being of children.
      .
      I'm not sayin', but I'm just sayin'.
      .

      Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. - Denis Diderot

      by Peanut on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:52:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  You are twisting the case (4.00)
    The case was not about whether it was constitutional to strip search a child during a drug bust.  No one had any doubts that it was.  Unfortunately, 'parents' hide drugs on children during busts to that the police won't find them.

    The issue in the case was that the affidavit requesting the search included 'any persons on the premisis' but the box to fill in of the description had not been completely filled out by the officers because there wasn't much room.

    The decision was that the search was not authorized.  Alito disagreement was that it was clearly intended in the request and also customary process.

    This whole pervision issue is a complete inflamatory distortion.  Had the officers written 'and other persons on the premesis' in the description, it would have been approved and no one would have objected.

    If you object to his judicial philosophy, do so.  Do not use sexual inuendo to slander him.

    •  That's my take too (4.00)
      and I've also got a daughter (and well remember being a 10 year old girl!).  But allowing children to be searched by police isn't what this case was about.

      The search doesn't sound like it was carried out in an abusive way, and though I've got LOTS of opinions about drug laws and enforcement in this country, fact is, people hide illegal stuff on kids, and this case wasn't deciding whether it was okay to search them.

      "Virginia Woolf's idea of a room of one's own has never been the place for middle- and working-class women. We work with interruptions." - Ananya Chatterjea

      by sarac on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:27:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nuance Loses (4.00)
      Debating the finer points of his judicial philosphy is something that non-lawyers and non-politijunkies are not going to follow.  Take the result of his rulings -- no right to abortion, no Family and Medical Leave, police strip-searching little girls -- and put those before the public and this guy goes down like the Hindenburg.  The point is to win, whether you do it through a nice, polite debate or a massive blow to the jaw.  The tools are chosen by the situation.

      Moreover, it is hardly slander to say that he voted for the strip search of a 10 year-old girl.  That's simply a fact.  There may be more nuance to it, but nearly any position has some nuance.  We're trying to shoot down a dangerous radical from taking his editing pencil to the U.S. Constitution.  It's not the time to debate his judicial philosophy any more than it was time to debate Sherman's march to the Sea while the Confederacy still had the breath of life.

      Finally, as an attorney, although there is some merit to debating his judicial philosophy, it must be recognized that rulings have real-world consequences.  Because one's judicial philosophy has no room for the FMLA has the consequence of forcing people to either lose their jobs or work while they are injured or a family members requires their care.  The fact is that "strict constructionism" is simply the latest term for "conservative judicial activism" of the type that derailed all social and economic reform for nearly forty years in this country - child labor laws, wage and hour legislation, and -- almost -- the New Deal.  We need to hammer the actual consequences of his votes and "philosophy" to the public in order to get him Borked.  Leave the debate over his "judicial philosophy" for a more appropriate time.

    •  I do agree (4.00)
      This pick was outrageous and what is so frustrating it is Bush telling us to f....ourselves after the Libby fiasco.  This is how he keeps his base in tow.  However, there are only 38% or so who now will still follow him to the ends of the earth.  We can't do much with them.  We can appeal to the other 60% and I think calling this pick a pervert or Nazi is not going to work.  They will think we are just as crazy as the right wing.

      Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities-Voltaire

      by hairspray on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:33:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, so he's one of THOSE (4.00)
      So let me get this straight,
      If the officers HAD filled it out, it would have been perfectly fine to strip search a 10 year old girl, because her parents MIGHT have stashed drugs on her.

      This says to me that the drug war has gone insane, and that we have insane people defending insane laws.

      What kind of people allow children to be kept in a situation like that in the first place?  Was social services called in?  Was there any thought for the children's welfare?  Was the only concern to FIND THE DRUGS?

      These officers are sick.  This judge is sick, and the people who allow this law to stand are sick.

      •  As a libertarian (moderate) (4.00)
        I believe the drug war is one of the major catastrophies of our time.

        But yes, if they had filled it out, NO judge would have objected to a female police officer looking for drugs in a private bathroom by 'removeing or shifting articles of clothing'.

        •  Grrrr... (4.00)
          Sorry, still hideous to me.

          I often joke that I'm a BAD libertarian because I believe that government has a place in social action.  However, the drug war is one place where I believe government has no place other than to help those that need help rehabilitate.

          (Of course banning corporations from selling smack to kids is another responsibility I think they have, once we get rid of these stupid laws...)

          •  Side issue (none)
            So long as drugs can be gotten IN PRISON, there is really no point in wasting time money and lives on a war on drugs.

            If it's not the government's business what gets taken out of someone's body, it's not the government's business what gets put in.

          •  Wait a second (none)
            It' simportant to understand the nuance in this case when it comes to this issue.

            The fact is, once the magistrate signs the warrant a police officer can rely on it as legal without the risk of being sued for invading that right. That would be a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of a person whose privacy is invaded. The COP is immune. The Magistrate might not be immune however, depending on the warrant he signed.

            Ultimately, once the search occurs it will be scrutinized as to how it played out in a criminal trial regardless of the warrant.

            In this case all that is happening is that the police are NOT be granted immunity because they went beyond the warrant - the same would happen if they stayed within the warrant - if it had said "searching other person such as" and they searched someone outside of that.

            So there's no guarantee that had the warrant even included the language mention that cops would have been immune.

        •  Sorry, but no. (none)
          "...if they had filled it out, NO judge would have objected..."

          That is just not supported by the facts of the case, nor by the extensive law on point which they (the majority) cite.

          There was not only no showing of probable cause to search the mother and daughter, there was not even an attempt to do so.  Therefore, the only inclusion possible would be under an "all occupants" scope, which every warrant-issuing magistrate -- according to the majority -- would necessarily reject as being contrary to Pennsylvania law in particular and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in general.

          The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur. -- GW Bush to PM Tony Blair Snopes "debunk": Not Persuasive

          by PJBurke on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 07:03:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yes it would have ben ok (4.00)
        Because drug  smugglers (for example) often use children as mules, stashing drugs in diapers, etc.

        While I agree the drug war is insane shit (and really counterproductive in the end) the "oh my god they trip search children" line is horse-shit.

        You also touch on the other aspect of it as well.. what kind of parents bring their kids to meth house for a buy in the first place?

        cheers,

        Mitch Gore

        Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

        by Lestatdelc on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:16:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly. (4.00)
          I vote go after these people for "Bad Parenting" not the drugs.

          You go after them for the drugs, nothing changes.  You go after them for being horrible to their children, and things happen quick.

        •  Correct me if I'm wrong here (none)
          But it seems as though
          1. yes, it would have been legal, IF she had been named or referenced; And
          2. the judge issuing the warrant had agreed to that condition.

          What is at question then is oversight, where the police, in practice, didn't ask for permission, and when what they didn't ask for wasn't specifically declined tried to say "but the judge didn't say we couldn't"?

          It sounds to my non-legal mind as though the warrant and the affidavit act jointly in the manner of `whichever comes first'.  Any disagreement of term or scope between the two documents is resolved by going with whichever is most restrictive?

          Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason. - John Harrington

          by EeDan on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 04:10:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  child's welfare? (none)
        she was already in a meth house

        not so crazy to search her for meth

        I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising. www.walken2008.com

        by The Exalted on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:17:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry, but I still think. (none)
          That if we had people who actually cared about the children, Social services would have been in there BEFORE the drug raid.  

          Which is more traumatic, being taken away by a social worker before your parents are using you as a mule, or being taken away by a police officer shouting for everyone to get down on the floor, and where are the DRUGSSS!!!!

          •  i mean (none)
            you think the proper way to conduct a raid on a meth house is to send in unarmed government non-law enforcement officials before the cavalry?

            you realize this would put the lives of every single individual in that house in danger, both the unarmed (and contextually unqualified) social workers, the users, the dealers, and the little girl.

            no, sorry, this would not be proper.

            I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising. www.walken2008.com

            by The Exalted on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:39:04 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes (none)
              That is exactly what I'm saying.

              I'm also saying why the hell bother to raid the place.  They're stupid but that's not a crime.  The most important thing is to get the kid out of that situation.  

              And put everyone's life in danger?  In that case, why hasn't action been taken even sooner, since these people must be completely insane. (Since you feel that they are obviously violent.)  And as such why bother taking them in on drug charges in the first place?  If they're a danger to their neighbors, why hasn't action been taken to get the children out of that house before.

              You're spouting a dangerous combination here.  
              Drugs = Violence.

              A much more reasonable reading of this is,
              Crime = Violence.

              The children are apparently being allowed to stay with violent criminals if your reading is correct.  As such, social services and the local police have been neglectful in not taking this child out of the situation before it escalated into a potentially dangerous situation.

              •  missed my inference (none)
                i'm not not saying everyone's lives are in danger just by virture of their geographic location with the drug house.

                i'm saying that the situation you propose has a strong likelihood of acting as a catalyst to change that drug house into a scene of violence.

                sending in government officials that are unequipped, both in armament and in training, to deal with a potentially violent confrontation is what creates the danger.

                unless you think drug dealers are going to respond favorably to government officials in their den?

                the police are trained, in such a situation, to prevent the outbreak of violence and ensure the bust goes down smoothly. they also have the firepower which serves as a powerful disincentive for the drug dealers to consider a violent counter response.

                i see your social workers going in, i see the drug dealers getting pissed, i see the possibility of a violent occurrence where none need exist.

                I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising. www.walken2008.com

                by The Exalted on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:17:09 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Stereotypes all (none)
                  When a social worker goes into a house to inquire about children's welfare, he or she is most likely going to be an effective change agent.  But when the cops bust in looking for violence they usually find it.

                  A friend of mine worked for years in North Richmond, CA, and never met with violence, though he did get many parents into treatment (or, if the parents wouldn't cooperate, the children removed until the parents got their act together).  He was never physically threatened, except (on several occasions) by undercover police for appearing to them to be suspiciously middle class in such a neighborhood.

              •  Speaking (none)
                as a former child protection worker, I can tell you that a social worker would never go into a potential child-apprehension case like this without police present.  It just isn't safe.

                "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

                by fishhead on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:19:45 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks Exalted (none)
          Well let's completely change the 4th amendment to just be a post-hoc analysis of whehter what cops did was reasonable under the circumstances and stuff!

          Super, cuz that would make sense and it's what this case is about!

          Dumbass

    •  "was't much room" (3.42)
      then you FUCKIN make the FUCKIN room!!! this will not become a corp. police state with a shadow war on unauthorized drugs, what fuckin judge approvd this warrent in the first place? well we know what judge upheld the strip search of a 10 yr old,a 10 yr old , this judge it seems would feel quite at home in a unaccountable police state , FUCKIN FASCIST PAWN !
      •  You miss the point (4.00)
        The drug war has gotten to the point where the actual act of body searches on all inhabitants is a routine process.  The searching of the child is in no way contrary to common practice.

        The ONLY thing at issue was filling out the form.  They did ask to search other people on the premises in the affidavit.

        •  i got the point. (none)
          this is about america being a nation of laws & this judge being very willing to bend those laws into the dirt. ashes to ashes , throw a hand full of dirt r.i.p. america.
          •  Absurd (none)
            His argument was that the police officers requested authority to search people found on the premises.  That this was commonly done and that the ONLY objection was that the officers hadn't included it in the box of the description.  His belief is that if they had, the warrant would have been signed as routine.

            This is getting really blown out of proportion.  Surely there are substantive issues.

    •  Agree, albeit partially (none)
      The title seems intended to imply that Alito is uncaring towards certain considerations of how the law affects real people, to the point that his decisions appear support the implication of strip-searching even relative innocents.  It inflames the point by not considering context, I agree.

      But, it's good propaganda :) .  Not to be taken literally, of course.

      As you note, we can certainly offer other takes on Alito from this case.

      However, I do think it's accurate to note that Alito's legal and/or social views appear to lead towards having this kind of effect, which implicitly means that he represents what this title offers.  This case may be only partly representative of that assertion, I admit.  He does state that:

      I share the majority’s
      visceral dislike of the intrusive search of
      John Doe’s young daughter, but it is a sad
      fact that drug dealers sometimes use
      children to carry out their business and to
      avoid prosecution.

      But, I think that this is dressing up his position to make it appear that his mind is seeing all sides.  That is, at least in the opinion, my cursory reading revealed no such visceral dislike - that didn't seem to be a prejudice in their decision, as he slyly appears to imply as to their motives.

      Instead, they offered:

      . . . We look in vain for any
      assertion that narcotics dealers often hide
      drugs on family members and young
      children. Perhaps they do; but the judge
      reviewing this affidavit would not know it.
      So, if anything, these paragraphs of the
      affidavit appear to undermine the probable
      cause to search Jane and Mary Doe. . .

      Finally, we consider whether the
      search of Jane and Mary Doe can be
      justified on some basis other than the
      warrant. The officers have not seriously
      pressed this argument, but the District
      Court did consider whether the officers
      had probable cause to search Jane and
      Mary Doe under an exception to the
      warrant requirement.

      None appears. A search warrant
      for a premises does not constitute a license to search everyone inside. . .

      It seems that Alito is trying to pin legally unsupportable, moral values of the majority against his sense of what is reasonable.  I don't mind his stating what is reasonable, just so long as it's honestly done.

      Overall, my quick take:

      Majority:

      In this case, there is no language in
      the warrant that suggests that the premises
      or people to be searched include Jane Doe,
      Mary Doe, “all occupants” or anybody
      else, save John Doe himself.

      Alito:

      . . . the best reading of the
      warrant is that it authorized the search of
      any persons found on the premises.
      Second, even if the warrant did not contain
      such authorization, a reasonable police
      officer could certainly have read the
      warrant as doing so, and therefore the
      appellants are entitled to qualified
      immunity.

      It's being informally stated on Kos-aligned blogs that Alito is rather stingy on criminal rights.  He does seem to give the police a bit of broad latitude here - even beyond the doubt of accepting explicit authorization.

      Majority:

      What is significant is that the
      officers can point to no precedent that
      allowed an unincorporated affidavit to
      expand a search warrant. Although there
      are decisions that allow unincorporated
      affidavits to clarify or narrow overbroad
      warrants, we have explained at
      considerable length why these are a totally
      different matter. This is not an arcane or
      legalistic distinction, but a difference that
      goes to the heart of the constitutional
      requirement that judges, and not police,
      authorize warrants.

      Alito:

      the affidavit also clearly
      attempted to establish probable cause to
      search all occupants of the premises.

      This seems to be an example of your point: he felt that that attachment was meant to be taken as implying that the magistrate should approve searches of any occupants of the targeted premises.

      Majority:

      Searching Jane and Mary Doe for
      evidence beyond the scope of the warrant
      and without probable cause violated their
      clearly established Fourth Amendment
      rights. Accordingly, we will affirm the
      decision of the District Court rejecting
      qualified immunity for the searches, and
      remand the case for further proceedings
      consistent with this opinion.

      Alito:

      I believe that the majority’s analysis
      is flawed. First and most important, the
      majority employs a technical and legalistic
      method of interpretation that is the
      antithesis of the “commonsense and
      realistic” approach that is appropriate.

      . . .

      The commonsense reading of this
      paragraph is that, in the experience of the
      affiants, drug dealers, when they are about
      to be arrested, often give contraband or
      incriminating evidence to other persons
      who are on the premises (“occupants”) in
      the hope that these persons will not be
      searched. The majority notes that this
      passage does not literally state that
      “narcotics dealers often hide drugs on
      family members and young children,” but
      this is precisely the sort of technical,
      legalistic reading that is out of place . . .

      I don't believe that Alito ever mentioned the Fourth Amendment rights - maybe I missed it.  Instead, he claims that technicalities are trumping his view of "commonsense".  To the majority, it seemed that they felt the Fourth Amendment was the "technical" issue of concern to consider in testing the merits of this appeal, not merely hinging the entire thing on how properly an officer filled in a text box on a form (one of a few areas Alito seems to classify as "technical").

      Hey, I'm all for fair and realistic interpretations of law in deciding cases to the extent that something like a Living Constitution would support, but Alito's opinion read to me as if he was looking at a single perspective (i.e., give the police a general benefit of the doubt in searches) and then deriving an offense to bolster that through (somewhat) repeating points.  Maybe I'm being cynical, though.  If anything, I found Alito's dissent as the one which went from broad generalities to minute technical interpretations, and it kept losing cohesion for me the more that I read.

      Majority:

      We are mindful that search
      warrants and affidavits are often prepared
      under time pressure and should not be
      subjected to microscopic dissection. But
      the warrant plays a critical role under the
      Fourth Amendment. At some point,
      flexibility becomes breakage. The warrant
      must be written with objective definition,
      or its scope will not be discernable to
      those who are bound to submit to its
      authority, whether they are police or
      subjects of the search. By the same
      token, without a clear reference to the
      affidavit in the warrant, the former cannot
      simply be assumed to broaden the latter.
      Otherwise, we might indeed transform the
      judicial officer into little more than the
      cliche “rubber stamp."

      Alito:

      Even if the warrant did not confer
      such authorization, a reasonable officer
      certainly could have believed that it did,
      and therefore the defendants’ motion for
      summary judgment based on qualified
      immunity should have been granted.

      Again, this type of position lent me to gradually view Alito as deriving arguments which led towards his actual goal.

      So, maybe the title isn't that terrible, really.  It could be a not unfair totem for what he seeks to support, regardless of how context could be jostled a bit more extremely than it should.

    •  If the child were in the warrant (none)
      The strip search would have been legal.  However, without explicit permission from the warrant or language directly referencing the affadavit, it's not a legal strip search.

      This was the majority opinion in this case.  The majority agreed that the police overstepped their bounds and the real-life consequences were an illegal strip-search of a 10-year-old child.

      You can talk about the conceptualization of points of law all you want, but I'm also concerned with the actual day-to-day consequences of the law.  In this case, Alito's judicial philosophy supported the strip search of a child.  Without permission, this becomes a perverted act whether it's to a child or an adult.

      I dunno about you, but if the police don't have a warrant explicitly listing my family, I'm not going to let the police touch them.  That's a basic civil right in my America.  

    •  Read The Case (none)
      You say: The case was not about whether it was constitutional to strip search a child during a drug bust.  No one had any doubts that it was.  

      Actual words of the majority opinion:

      "The constitutional violation at issue here arises under Jane and Mary Doe's Fourth (and Fourteenth) Amendment rights to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. ..."

      "The officers argue that they did not violate clearly established federal constitutional rights when they searched a mother and her ten year old daughter in the course of executing a search warrant for narcotics at their home.

      The appeal turns on the scope of search authorized by the warrant. To resolve this issue, we must consider under what circumstances the scope of a warrant may be expanded by looking to the accompanying affidavit. We hold it to be clearly established that unless a search warrant specifically incorporates an affidavit, the scope of the warrant may not be broadened by language in that affidavit. ..."

      The majority of the Court explicitly state that the case is exactly about whether the search of the child (as an unspecified other) was a constitutional violation.  The majority seemed to have very serious doubts... so serious, in fact, that they held it to be a violation of the mother's and daughter's constitutional rights:

      Actual words of the majority opinion:
      "We hold it to be clearly established that unless a search warrant specifically incorporates an affidavit, the scope of the warrant may not be broadened by language in that affidavit. We also conclude that, under any reasonable reading, the warrant in this case did not authorize the search of the mother and daughter, and that the search was not otherwise justified.... Searching Jane and Mary Doe for evidence beyond the scope of the warrant and without probable cause violated their clearly established Fourth Amendment  rights."

      You say: Unfortunately, 'parents' hide drugs on children during busts to that the police won't find them.

      Actual words of the majority opinion:
      "...when we examine the affidavit on which the officers rely, it is doubtful that probable cause exists to support a search of John Doe's wife and minor daughter. Paragraphs 17 and 20 -- which are the provisions seeking to justify an "all occupants" search -- quite specifically argue that visitors may be present purchasing drugs and that dealers often give contraband to non-residents of a house in the hopes they will not be searched. We look in vain for any assertion that narcotics dealers often hide drugs on family members and young children. Perhaps they do; but the judge reviewing this affidavit would not know it.  So, if anything, these paragraphs of the affidavit appear to undermine the probable cause to search Jane and Mary Doe.

      You say: The issue in the case was that the affidavit requesting the search included 'any persons on the premisis' but the box to fill in of the description had not been completely filled out by the officers because there wasn't much room.

      There is a lengthy discussion of why affidavits must be incorporated by specific reference.  You should read that before throwing out this ultra-lame "dog ate my homework" form of excuse. Warrants require specificity for a reason.

      Actual words of the majority opinion:
      "...The omission of Jane Doe, Mary Doe, or "all occupants" from the warrant in this case cannot be viewed as the sort of ambiguity or misidentification error that can be clarified by inspecting the affidavit. This warrant has no ambiguous or contradictory terms on its face. Rather,the language of the warrant is inconsistent with the language of the affidavit, because the former does not grant what the latter sought -- permission to search "all occupants" of the house. That is not a discrepancy as to form; it is a difference as to scope. And it is a difference of significance. A state magistrate reviewing a search warrant affidavit might well draw the line at including unnamed "all occupants" in the affidavit because Pennsylvania law disfavors "all occupant" warrants. See Commonwealth v. Gilliam,
      560 A.2d 140, 142 (Pa. 1989). Thus, the circumstances of this warrant are a far cry
      from those in the category of warrants which can be "clarified" by a separate affidavit.

      "...The warrant must be written with objective definition, or its scope will not be discernable to those who are bound to submit to its authority, whether they are police or subjects of the search. By the same token, without a clear reference to the affidavit in the warrant, the former cannot simply be assumed to broaden the latter. ..."

       


      Had the officers written 'and other persons on the premesis' in the description, it would have been approved and no one would have objected.

      That thoroughly uninformed contention is utterly demolished in the portions of the majority opinion cited above.



      The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur. -- GW Bush to PM Tony Blair Snopes "debunk": Not Persuasive

      by PJBurke on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 10:25:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Strip Search Sammy (3.60)
    Could that be the new Scalito?

    Visit Hughes for America, the Worldwide Leader in Web Log Technology for 50 Years!

    by BobcatJH on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:19:50 AM PST

    •  Ew. (none)
      I'm still trying to get the evil voice of Sammy the Stem Cell out of my brain. I'm not so sure replacing him with Strip Search Sammy is much of an upgrade.

      But it's got a flow to it...

      "I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV."

      by zeitshabba on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:28:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh my god (4.00)
      That sounds like the sort of nickname a pedophile would get.

      If his father's name is Sam, then... it's Strip Search Sammy, Son of Sam.


      I wear the black in mournin' for the lives that could have been/ Each week we lose a hundred fine young men. -- Johnny Cash

      by Page van der Linden on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:30:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I likes (none)
        "Strip Search Sammy" smell mighty good from here.  We need to define him right now and make sure he is so unpalatable to the public that either Republicans will cross the aisle to vote against him or that public support for a filibuster is overwhelming.
        •  Oh, I finally get it (none)
          "Strip search Sammy" is a proposed new nickname.

          I like it.  It's got sticking power and it makes people ask questions.

          And we won't be criticized for making references to his ethnicity...

          Strip search Sammy: "He won't bend the rules to help women, but he will bend the rules when it hurts women."

          Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

          by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 03:48:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Hmm... (4.00)
        That sounds like the sort of nickname a pedophile would get.

        All the more reason to use it.

        Visit my blog Penndit.
        The Republicans' worst enemy is an informed electorate.

        by Newsie8200 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:37:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh yeah. (4.00)
          Exactly.

          If I was worth anything in writing about SCOTUS stuff, I'd post that right on the front page.

          It is a PATRIOT Act sort of thing, a violation of basic rights, so I might be able to pull it off.


          I wear the black in mournin' for the lives that could have been/ Each week we lose a hundred fine young men. -- Johnny Cash

          by Page van der Linden on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:39:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  clever but I dont like it (none)
      "strip search sammy" isnt fair. it is absurd how long this thread is when its plain as day that if you couldnt search the kids, bad parents would simply stash drugs on the kids in the house.

      it is not a sexual violation to search a child in the presence of their parents.

      "Strength and wisdom are not opposing values." - Bill

      by skyterrain on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:24:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  fuck fair (none)

        Come get lost in our world: www.politicsandletters.com

        by MonkeyDog102 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 03:23:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ugggh (none)
        That's not what this case is about!! It's plan as day, now stop bringing up this stupid stupid argument, like the 4th amendment doesn't create starnge technicalities that can be taken advantage of by criminals AND cops! It's not an amendment or area of law that heavily weighs public policy.

        Stop it! This is easily as big a misnomer as the "pervert/pedophile" bull shit.

  •  Activist Frame (4.00)
    While I think the strip-search angle, while provacative, is less inflammatory than originally thought, there can be some real traction gained from this case - namely that Scalito is an activist Judge of the worst sort - willing to look beyond the four corners of a warrant to determine the outcome he wishes to achieve.

    It does not matter what the affidavit said - it is the warrant that matters and there may be good reason that a warrant is more narrow than an affidavit.  

    In this day and age of the government increasingly expanding the powers of law enforcement at the expense of our Constitutional rights, we should still be able to demand that law enforcement rely on the warrant it has, not on the warrant it wish it had.  

    Any Judge that says otherwise does not deserve a slot on the Supremes.

  •  Alito's position is an extremist position (4.00)
    The media wants to make the fight about abortion, but strip-searching 10 year old girls hits closer to home for most Americans than abortion does.

    "He's such an extremist he's okay with strip-searching 10 year old girls."

    How will the right defend that talking point?

    Pretend that Alito didn't rule that way? Maybe, but the talking point can be used by moderate and conservative Democrats, too.

    Visit my blog Penndit.
    The Republicans' worst enemy is an informed electorate.

    by Newsie8200 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:36:12 AM PST

    •  Not only is he OK with it, he is OK with (4.00)
      the police expanding on the limits explicitly set forth in a search warrant to do so.

      That is the scary part, especially framed in the light of the Patriot Act. Strip Search Sammy is so extreme that he is all for letting police decide on their own to strip search your kids, whether the warrant specifically allows it or not, if it is a "commonsense" thing to do.

      "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

      by bewert on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:47:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  yes yes yes absolutely indefensible (none)
      let's hang it around the necks of every Alito supporter and watch them squirm trying to defend it.

      Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:53:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We hear you loud and clear (none)
    I know how mad you are, we share your abject and justified rage.

    The playbook on Alito is opened, I submit your particular beef is page one. He will have to state in front on the cameras, for every one to see, exactly why he wrote that decision. Even if he robertses his answer by non-answering he will be public exposed and deservedly so. This is certainly going to a filibuster, Sen. Reid has already said as much. The question is the role of the gang of 14, if they hold then he goes down in flames. Publicly humiliated.

    You want to spit? Go right ahead, just watch out for your fellow Kossacks, we're right there with you.

  •  I Only Hope the Left (none)

    spit fire as well.

    This is it folks, the war the radical right dreamed of for decades. If we fail to bring all guns to bear on this one, the left WILL remain a permanent minority.

    This is Armageddon.

    (Do I over react?)

  •  I disagree with the decision, but . . . (4.00)
    . . . it is simply ludicrous to indicate that he is any kind of a pervert.  By making such personal slurs, we merely damage our own credibility.

    What CAN reasonably be said about his opinion is that it indicates an unreasonable and rather extreme willingness to devalue individual rights in relation to governmental power over individuals -- and I think that's a pretty powerful argument against confirmation in and of itself, at least if it is part of a trend (which I get the impression that it is).  

  •  Front-paged (3.50)
    This should be posted on the front page. We need to define Scalito as the radical he is TODAY. This ruling should be coming out of the mouths of every Democrat and liberal making the rounds of the news programs. We must show the American people what he is.
  •  This is the truth behind religious repression (3.66)
    of natural biological urges: it produces perverts.

    If this man is a product of a repressive, arch-conservative-cum-reactionary background, which I have little doubt he must be in order to satisfy his (and W.'s) true masters (the Right), he's probably a seething pot of barely contained animal urges.

    Don't forget that the Starr Report, purportedly about perjury and criminal misconduct by a sitting President, was probably at least 99.999% about sex, and a legion of churchgoing conservatives ate it up like pancakes smothered in syrup.

    I'm 1,000%+ with you on this, though, I have no plans to live in an America that would allow, much less condone from on high, any such treatment of small children.  Or grown ones, for that matter.

    I do think, though, that this move only goes further to unmask W. as a sock puppet of his corporate overlords, and he picked the wrong year, the year of two thousand dead in Iraq and thousands more dead and displaced in the Gulf States, to try to play act his role as President.

  •  Family Medical Leave Act (none)
    O.T. to the specific case mentioned in this diary, but who in this country DOESN'T benefit from FMLA? That includes Republicans. On this one position alone, how many Republican senators would be willing to support this guy?

    There just seem to be so many examples of this guy's opinions that could give his opponents enough ammo to take him down.

  •  Yes, I already put this in my LTEs (none)
    I sent out to 4 papers this morning.  This is VERY important to get out - I also emailed this to about 40 people.  

    Please everyone, this is just as powerful, or even more so, than Alito wanting women to get their husbands' permission to get an abortion. Imagine every father in America seeing this - their daughter, 11 years old, strip-searched because a warrant is out for them. Wow.

    "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

    by adigal on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:56:56 AM PST

  •   Upperdown vote (none)
    takes on new meaning with Alito.  "Lift your shirt and drop your pants, little girl".

    "He that sees but does not bear witness, be accursed" Book of Jubilees

    by Lying eyes on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:59:06 AM PST

  •  what's worse than strip searches..... (none)

    The disgusting practice of "observed" drug tests, where you have to pull down your pants, pull out your weewee, and make it operate successfully under the gaze of a vaguely hostile stranger.

    That's not even something people do with their sex-partners unless they're really kinky (the term for it is "water sports," and as you might guess, that kind of thing does not appeal to me!).  

    And it also applies to highschool kids wanting to take part in certain aftershool activities.  And to the girls as well as the boys.  

    If there's one thing more vile than a strip search, it's being forced to demonstrate the actual workings of one's "private parts" to a hostile stranger.   Talk about sexual harassment, I can't even find words for how vile the whole thing is.  Visual rape.  

    And very often the consequence of objecting to this kind of treatment is that you lose your job.  Backed up by law.  

    So where does Mr. Strip Search stand on this one...?  

    •  Depends on how invasive the search is (none)
      Agreed, doing the tinkle with someone rather hostile watching is pretty uncomfortable, but its a lot more uncomfortable to have that hostile stranger's lubed finger inserted into your anus and vagina under the threat of force.

      I'm also getting more and more uncomfortable with how widespread the use of pepper spray is becoming, especially on people already securely in custody. It is becoming rather close to torture when you pepper spray or mace someone in handcuffs. Especially when you hold the persons eyes open so you can make sure you get a direct hit, as has happened here in the northwest to some of the anti-logging activists.

      "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

      by bewert on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:58:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No kidding, eh? (none)
      I once had the chance to get a job and move south to the United States.  It's stuff like this that led me to turn down the offer--the idea of having to submit to a drug test is a complete and total turn-off, even though I've never used any non-prescribed  drugs. Thankfully the courts in this country have outlawed this kind of horse-shit.
  •  Where are the 527's?? (none)

    I can see SO many good opportunities to create doubt about him that the filibuster would not even be needed.

    The far right anti abortion folks gave Bush his margin to win. HOWEVER they are NOT a majority, even within the Republican party. There is a strong libertarian streak in the party that his record runs counter to really.

  •  Atrocious (none)
    Thank you so much for bringing this up - we would NEVER have heard this from the MSM. I really appreciate your passion. We need to fight this nomination for the sake of the future of our nation.
  •  If you want a case ... (4.00)
    ... something like this might do better for you.

    Cai Luan Chen v. Ashcroft

    Forced abortion by Chinese authorities not grounds for an asylum claim; although the petitioners were of marriagable age under US law, the Chinese age of marriage was set artifically high in order to support the country's forcible population control policy.

    Money quote: Denying asylum for forced abortion in this case is acceptable because it "contributes to efficient administration and avoids difficult and problematic factual inquiries".

    There's fire-breathing principle for you.

    •  I think we have a winner (none)
      Wow! I'll have to have a further look at that one.

      "They may agree that failure isn't an option, but this does not mean they will necessarily avoid it." - David Manning re: BushCo in DSM

      by DavidW in SF on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:22:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You should diary that case n/t (none)

      "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

      by bewert on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:52:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  But...but... (none)
      I thought the right was against abortion! Oh wait, these are nonwhite people. Carry on, then.

      The Lord is a shoving leopard. - William A. Spooner

      by lirtydies on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:38:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with Alito there. (none)

      Reading the case, it's not the young lady appealing for asylum due to the forced abortion. It's her boyfriend, who was never married to her, and left the country (and her) after getting in an altercation with the cops.


      The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 grants asylum to actual women who have been threatened with forced abortion.  But why would we grant it to the unmarried boyfriend who abandoned her?

      •  you may be right... (none)
        I'm not a legal expert, but the immigration reforrm act of 1996 is a POS.  Congress needs to tear the thing up and start over...

        I had my own blog for a while, but I decided to go back to just pointless, incessant barking. --Cartoon Dog, The New Yorker

        by markymarx on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 06:44:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is that. Yep, a POS, all right. (none)
          But as a Canadian temporarily residing in the US -- who has observed some of the idiocies of the 1996 act first hand... may I make a request?

          Please do not re-open the issue until your country has recovered its sanity. An Immigration Act revised today would assuredly be much, much worse than the current one.

          Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

          by Canadian Reader on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 06:27:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  dear canadian reader (none)
            Please consider becoming a US citizen!  

            I had my own blog for a while, but I decided to go back to just pointless, incessant barking. --Cartoon Dog, The New Yorker

            by markymarx on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 06:55:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh dear. Thank you for the compliment. (none)
              That's very sweet of you. But... um, how can I say this tactfully...

              No. Just... no. I'd, ah, prefer not to.

              </understatement>

              Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

              by Canadian Reader on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 07:33:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  that's ok, stay there (none)
                I may need to come and live there if things get much worse, and it would help to have a contact in-country to help us get settled!

                </only half kidding>

                Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

                by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 07:51:26 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  easy for YOU to say... (none)
                But really...who cares what YOU want?  snark

                Seriously, we need more blue voters--I don't care which border they cross to get here.  

                I had my own blog for a while, but I decided to go back to just pointless, incessant barking. --Cartoon Dog, The New Yorker

                by markymarx on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 06:07:22 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Moral of this story (4.00)
    appears to be: "When evaluating a nominee for the courts and you are given a blurb on one of his/her rulings, you probably should read more about the ruling before acting on the blurb."
  •  What does Alito believe in? (4.00)
    Does he believe in government entering our homes and strip searching our daughters?

    Americans have consistently shown they reject such heavy handed tactics by big brother government.

    Alito is so far out, he's against individual rights!

  •  but the expansion (4.00)
    of search and seizure, for which many conservatives advocate, is a concern.  this paring away at the  right to privacy on all levels is what needs to be elaborated and underscored.

    PRIVACY
    PRIVACY
    PRIVACY

    that a ten-year old girl is involved is just a lurid detail that can only serve as a bonus.

  •  Thanks for this diary (none)
    It's unbelievable what these people are doing...
  •  Pointer to the case (3.80)
    The PDF of the actual case can be found here. I generally find it helpful to read and understand the issues being considered in a case before commenting on any assumptions about it.

    Alito's dissent starts on p 14. I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet.

    This case deserves much attention in working to defeat Alito's nomination. It is clear that he is an extremist, but calling him a "pervert" is unwarranted. I cannot recommend this diary.

    "They may agree that failure isn't an option, but this does not mean they will necessarily avoid it." - David Manning re: BushCo in DSM

    by DavidW in SF on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:18:29 AM PST

    •  It depends on your definition (4.00)
      I feel what Alito agreed to permit IS perverted.  The police strip searched the man's wife and his daughter.  The search warrant did not ask for such searches, so they were illegal.  The fact Alito would allow such a broad expansion of power to erode the Fourth Amendment is, in itself, a very serious matter.

      The fact it involved such a humiliating and sexually oppressive and obscene practice is perverted.  I believe Alito upheld what, to me, was the policemen's perverted enjoyment and abuse of power.  That makes his decision obscene and a perversion of the Bill of Rights.

      "My job is to protect the American people." George W. Bush. Did he?

      by PAprogressive on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:27:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dems should hammer this over and over again (4.00)
    If they do nothing else to fight this nominee, the "Alito believes in strip-searching ten-year-old girls" meme should be super-glued to Alito the way the right-wing super-glued Jane Fonda to Kerry.

    NO ONE, other than the Christofascist Zombie Brigade, will go along with this nomination then.

  •  It is very simple. (4.00)
    They hate women.  They hate the power women have.  They hate educated women.  They hate opinionated women.  They hate strong women.  They hate women entrepreneurs.  They hate women who want to control their own bodies, make their own money, make their own decisions, control their own destinies.  It is all about hate and the ensuing hunger for complete domination of females.  Corrupted power.

    A typical agenda for fundamentalists...of all religious faiths.  It is paranoid extremists like Dobson, Robertson, Bin Laden and team-extreme Bush that are afraid of anything with a vagina.

    Not the church. Not the state. Women will decide their fate.

    by JaciCee on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:21:18 AM PST

    •  Patriarchy and fundamentalism (4.00)
      Are intrinsically joined.  And it's not just hating, fearing and controlling women.  It's anyone who is seen as "weaker," malleable or not part of the oppressing ingroup.  Check out how the fundies belive that God tells them to beat the devil out of their children (literally).
  •  I can't believe... (3.50)
    ... how many people are defending this.  If there is a legal defense for this action I am in despair for our society.

    The chips are down. Find your outrage.

    by sj on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:21:19 AM PST

    •  they're not defending the argument itself (none)
      as far as i can tell.  in and of itself i think we all agree it's pretty reprehensible.

      now if someone called alito a pedophile...

      and then i said "nah.  he's probably not a pedophile."

      would that mean i was defending his opinion on the case in question???

      "I don't think Feingold and Clinton are really that far apart on Iraq." -- Howard Dean, 10/23/05

      by BiminiCat on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:15:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Or another case ... (4.00)
    ... making the nation's universities safe for Big Alcohol:

      The Pitt News v. Pappert

    •  Strip search Sammy (none)
      is also in favor of promoting binge drinking in universities. Awesome. This is the guy we want in the high court for the next 30 years.
    •  So you think (none)
      that state should be able to tell a college newspaper what ads for legal products the newspaper may and may not accept based on the ad's content?  

      On what grounds?

      What kinds of ads may the state ban?

      If you want something other than the obvious to happen, you've got to do something other than the obvious...

      by trillian on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:50:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No strong feelings, actually (none)
        I posted that mostly because I couldn't resist the tag line.

        In fact I don't have strong feelings on this one way or the other.  I would be comfortable living in a world, and in fact do live in a country where such restrictions are possible.  The advertising of booze is a very specific form of commercial speech with visible effects on public order, and it's hard to see how regulating it in the narrow context of on-campus newspapers opens a gateway to tyranny.

        On the other hand, permitting such advertising is a decision that a society might reasonably make as well.  It's a judgement call, not worth fussing over seriously.

        For a seriously questionable decision, take a look at the Robert S. v. Stetson Sch decision, further down the thread.

  •  Hey all you angry folks (4.00)
    When I get angry, I take action. It helps. So everything everyone is doing about this craziness is great. But posting here isn't action enough--we are just typing to ourselves. Let the world know how you feel, any way you can.

    Peacepositive always!

  •  Your (4.00)
    post has made me extremely, extremely angry. I read it before I had to go to a Halloween party and I thought about it the entire time I was there.

    I'm getting ready to call my Senators and tell them about this. This piece of filth should never be allowed on the supreme court. Christians should be horrified. Fundamentalist leaders are supporting this creep!

    It will be over my cold, dead body that people like Alito are allowed to make decisions that will affect my children.

    I'm too disgusted right now to think of a sig.

    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:51:24 AM PST

    •  Then don't step outta line. (4.00)
      Because according to most of the above dissenters, suspicion of a crime means that you don't have any rights.

      Yup, you too can live a healthy productive life as long as you toe the line, and make certain that you aren't a minority, female, non-christian or a non-republican.

      Just remember.  

      9-11!  9-11!  TERRORIST TERRORIST TERRORIST!

      Suspicion is guilt.

      •  Let's return from la-la land (4.00)
        If you are under suspicion of a crime, you do NOT have the right not to be searched. The 4th Amendment prohibits UNREASONABLE search and seizure.

        What was on the table was whether that search could be considered reasonable. I think there was agreement that given the absence of a full search order in the warrant, technically the search was invalid. However, there is ample precedent for limited leeway given to law enforcement that allows them to make mistakes and not invalidate their prosecution of a crime.

        If you want to argue that such leeway is undesirable, in many cases I would agree. Similarly, if you want to argue that 10 year olds shouldn't ever be searched in any fashion, go for it. But those are discussions beyond the scope of this particular ruling.

        •  I used the term Suspicion (none)
          As broadly as possible.

          I was referring to the standard "hey, that guy's suspicious" activities that seem to be the norm with law enforcement nowadays.

          But you're right, these discussions are for a different diary.

          Suspicion is Guilt. As long as you aren't a Republican White Male.

          by detroitmechworks on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:22:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Hyperbole doesn't serve us well (4.00)
    The fact that Alito supported an unwarranted invasive search is a valid and damning issue.

    Calling him a "disgusting pervert" for it is hyperbole, and does not serve our goal well.

    Do you believe that Alito made this ruling because of his sexual preferences? That is an absurd conclusion.  Alito made this ruling because he supports decreased judicial authority over police powers.

    And supporting decreased judicial authority over police powers is awful.  But calling him a disgusting pervert for it is easily (and correctly) dismissed, and will have the unfortunate side effect of causing some people to incorrectly dismiss the valid issue that he supports decreased judicial authority over police powers.

  •  it has occured to me that (4.00)
    the freakshow probably just thinks a mother and her ten-year-old daughter are SUBSETS under the heading of: a man and his home.

    "I don't think Feingold and Clinton are really that far apart on Iraq." -- Howard Dean, 10/23/05

    by BiminiCat on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:12:17 AM PST

    •  link for signiture? (none)
      This is off-topic, but out of curiosity, do you happen to have a link handy to where Howard Dean said that? I tried googling it, but all I got were DKos threads where you had left a comment.
    •  Not at all (none)
      His legal analysis turned on whether to include the search warrant request and affidavit info re: other occupants of the meth den, it had nothing to do with the woman and child being the subset of the man, and to imply that based on nothing is pretty cheap.

      I think he's a wingnut, but for substantive reasons, not this trash.

      "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

      by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:02:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  this is* exactly* what I thought! (none)
      and a lot of people I have talked to about this case today have had the same response, especially women.

      just a subset--practically an extension of the man's property.

      I've been diary whoring over several threads but if you're still up and reading I hope you specifically will check out my diary on this very interpretation of the Doe v Groody dissent.

      Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:46:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have daughters and grandaughters and (4.00)
    God or whatever gods there be would have to protect whoever strip searched any of them before they reached the age of majority   with or without a warrant.  After the age of majority, I'd only help beat up their abuser if asked and/or if it were done without due process.

    What the hell kind of country have we become when children can be abused in that way and have JUDGES who are supposed to be upholding the law and CONSTITUTION agree with such evil acts.

    Go to the library and check out The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood.  It is also a movie.  That is the kind of country that accepting things like Alito's ruling can bring about.

    I knew Bush was evil.   This is the final cap.  He isn't incompetent only.  He isn't interested in enriching his cronies only.  He isn't a spoiled brat only.  He is just flat out evil for even nominating someone who would rule so.

    And no, I have NOT read the case.  I can think of no circumstance where it would be acceptable, and if there is a bleep in the law that might make it acceptable, its up to a responsible and honorable judge to see that it still is NOT acceptable.

    A borrow and binge republican's head explodes when its pointed out that the high tax era was our longest sustained growth. oooops there goes another one

    by maybeeso in michigan on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:16:08 AM PST

  •  More food for thought ... (4.00)
    ... this time concerning child abuse.

    The case cite is Robert S. v. Stetson Sch., Inc., 256 F.3d 159 (Third Circuit, 2001) (available only in printed form or via Lexis, apparently).

    Essentially, this case held that the abusive treatment of children in a privately operated juvenile correction facility does not violate the Constitution.

    This was a civil rights action brought against a school, alleging "physical and psychological abuse" against a child.  The child had been (sexually) abused at home, and later (sexually) abused a brother.  He clearly had problems, and with parental consent, he was sent to Stetson School, a small residential facility for juvenile sex offenders.

    Stetson was, as it were, an outsourcing operation.  Robert S. complained of abuse BY STAFF AT THE SCHOOL, including kicking and punching.  He attempted to pursue this under the Civil Rights Acts as a constitutional violation.

    For the Civil Rights Acts to apply, there must be state action.  The court held that there was none, because the school was a ... private entity.

    Outsourcing child abuse.  Great move.

    This is actually rather serious.

    •  Very serious indeed (none)
      I have heard so many horror stories about such homes, including from two guys who lived in a couple of them through most of their teen years.  They should be regulated at least as strongly as home day cares are.

      "Virginia Woolf's idea of a room of one's own has never been the place for middle- and working-class women. We work with interruptions." - Ananya Chatterjea

      by sarac on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 04:04:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Poll anyone? (none)
    Would the diary originator be inclined to add a poll question that includes all the variables that people have discussed?  A judgment of the commenters of Alito's opinion in so many words, not the man and the appointment.
  •  Please (4.00)
    FILIBUSTER this animal!!! He does not need to be anywhere near the Supreme Court.

    No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual war. -James Madison

    by oneworld on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:43:48 AM PST

  •  oh calm down (none)
    I'm sure those officers were just 'practicing their love' on the mother and daughter.
  •  Facts versus Spin (3.60)
    I think it's a great headline about Alito being a pervert and terrifying a child. It doesn't matter how many times the true facts of the case are brought up - most voters won't bother to listen to it.

    If you think that's unethical, amoral, or "sinking to their level", good, so be it.

    Let Rush Limbaugh, Brit Hume, and the rest of the hyenas explain the "facts." How many of them explained the facts of John Kerry and his medals?

    Link the headline of Alito supporting terryifying children with Bush's choosing unqualified incompetents for judgeships and positions of authority in his administration.

    If the s.o.b. is vulnerable to those charges right now, then construction glue it to his ass.

    No more nice guy. In today's America, the one that shouts the loudest and longest, wins. I can't believe I've come to this, but my Common Cause days are long gone.

  •  Hold on there ... (4.00)
    Just one question -- have any of you read the opinion itself, where Alito wrote his dissent?

    The case was of a drug dealer and the officers who came to search his home.  According to the facts, "On March 6, 1998, as the result of a long-term investigation of John Doe for suspected narcotics dealing, officers of the Schuylkill County Drug Task Force ... sought a search warrant for Doe and his residence.  ... Additionally the affidavit stated: 'The search should also include all occupants of the residence ..."

    The search warrant itself (not the affidavit attached)had a space to put in what the officers wanted to search, and that space spoke only to searching "John Doe" and not everyone on the premises.

    Now whether you agree with the majority opinion, who upheld that the officers violated the mother and daughter's Constitution rights or agree with the dissent Alita, who claimed that the officers "meant" to put that information in the warrant as well as the affidavit, thereby being able to search everyone in the house, in no way is anyone a Nazi here, as someone posted above.

    It is very important, I believe, to find out the facts and avoid inflammatory rhetoric at this time. Everyone is sick and tired of this Administration and their lies, everyone is sick and tired of the Rovian poison that is dividing Americans.

    Think of Rove and then think of Fitzgerald.  Fitzgerald called no one names, disrespected no one, and yet profoundly showed the egregious corruption in the Bush Administration.  He got the facts first.  So should we.

    •  "Meant to" (4.00)
      is a very important distinction.

      It wasn't in the warrant. Slippery slope anyone?

      This is like the Patriot Act. The ends justify the means.

      You want to have a SCOTUS Judge that thinks that way, be my guest.

      "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." -- Sinclair Lewis

      by Dunbar on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:50:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, I do NOT want a SCOTUS judge... (none)
        like this .. but that doesn't make him a lunatic Nazi, either.  We can disagree and dissent and fight back without demonizing.  I also don't want any more Rove-talk.  It's bogus and it accomplishes nothing.
  •  Rovian "Poison" Wins (4.00)
    I respectfully disagree. Rovian poison wins. You may be sick of inflammatory rhetoric; voters may also say they are tired of it;but, like Pavlov's dogs, they respond to it every time.

    I don't like it either. I wish political discourse was about facts, policies, and qualifications. It isn't and hasn't been.

    Voters always say that they don't like negative campaigning, but then they believe the negative things they hear and vote accordingly.

    It's time for us to wise up.

    •  That may have been true (none)
      ... before Katrina, Iraq, Libby ... I don't think it is true now.  I think Rovian poison is just that, poison.  It helps no one.  Yeah, sure, he got Dubya into the White House, and after 30 years of slow and patient Republican strategy, Bush, using these Rovian tactics, didn't even make it into his second term without blowing all his political capital.  No, not for me, thanks.
  •  Hello from planet earth (3.33)
    have any of you people actually read his opinion?  I thought not.  Here is the last paragraph.  

    "In sum, the District Court erred in
    denying the defendants' motion for
    summary judgment. I share the majority's
    visceral dislike of the intrusive search of
    John Doe's young daughter, but it is a sad
    fact that drug dealers sometimes use
    children to carry out their business and to
    avoid prosecution. I know of no legal
    principle that bars an officer from
    searching a child (in a proper manner) if a
    warrant has been issued and the warrant is
    not illegal on its face. Because the warrant
    in this case authorized the searches that are
    challenged - and because a reasonable
    officer, in any event, certainly could have
    thought that the warrant conferred such
    authority - I would reverse."  

    Reasonable people can disagree on his thinking here but to say he believes in strip searching ten year old girls at random and is a pervert because of this ruling only provides fodder for the right wing bloggers.  Everyone friggin calm down, read his opinions and go at this in an educated manner instead of a like bunch of foaming at the mouth nutcases.

    •  link, please n/t (none)

      If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

      by ord avg guy on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:45:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I read the opinion (4.00)
      It's a pathetic excuse Alito gives for siding with an abuse of the 14th Amendment.  He clearly doesn't believe that the rights of people to not be subject to unlawful search and seizure supercedes the rights of the police to do whatever they think is right--on the spot--despite being told otherwise by a judge.  

      Don't get distracted by the tone of this paragraph.  Scalia has this gift of rhetoric as well.

      The 'sad fact' that he talks  about is totally wrong.  If a child is in danger, the police have every right to call on social services and have that child removed from the home.  Doe V Groody outlines an abuse of police power of the worst kind--using a search warrant as a pretense for circumventing the law, at the expense of the welfare of a child.  Once strip searched--this child will not recover.  

      The truly 'sad fact' is that Alito not only seeks to relax or eliminate the 14th, but that he sees no need to criticize the police for not seeking the aid of social services to remove that child from the situation.  The police in that case had the foresite to bring along a woman officer to pat down the mother and the daughter, but they did not bother to call social services to get that child out of there. Why?  Because they knew that Meth dealers hide drugs on their kids and that--even though the judge forbid it--they wanted to try to catch the kid being used by the parents.

      It's disgusting. And yes, Alito does support this. This is his view:  the right of the Police to search comes before the rights of individuals to be free from the terror of unlawful police searches.  Is he a pervert?  Of course not.  There are foolish comments in just about every blog discussion.  But Doe V Groody demonstrates clearly that Judge Alito is an enemy of the 14th Amendment.

  •  Commerce clause (none)
    With his favoring of the narrow (false) interpretation of the commerce clause (in which "commerce" just means "commercial," not the wider meaning it had when the clause was written of covering all human interaction), we'll lose all federal environmental regulation. But will we also lose all federal control of drugs, as long as they aren't actually sold over state lines?

    It may be a more toxic world, but at least individual escape will become more readily available.

  •  I found it interesting (4.00)
    that Alito 'trusted' that the magistrate signing the warrant had 'paid careful consideration to the affidavit and approved the warrant without modification'.  He is arguing that the magistrate let the warrant go because he know that the affidavit made the intentions clear.

    The more appropriate, and judicial reading should be precisely the opposite - the magistrate read the affidavit and approved the narrower warrant without change because the the warrant application came after the affidavit and therefore can be presumed to have the best information regarding the search - no search of other persons was necessary, so the warrant did not ask for it explicitly or refer to the affidavit explicitly.

    Alito clearly lets his bias show here: he presumes that 10 year old children could be carrying drugs and the need to combat drugs trumps the need to be precise in warrants, especially where it involves searching minors.

  •  AND! (none)
    It ain't that he supported authorization for the equivalent to molesting ten year old girls. It ain't that he supported molesting ten year old girls because there was probably cause it would result in crucial evidence.

    He supported molesting ten year old girls because one was just sitting around and looking all suspicious-like.

    The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

    by Shapeshifter on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:22:10 PM PST

  •  Some of these comments address the reality (4.00)
    here, but sadly most do not. The title of this diary and the decisions cited at Progress Report are inflamatory, tactics we must ALL seek to avoid. These ploys try to hook into established fears -- molesting young girls, over-turning Roe v. Wade, etc. -- that one judge or another believes it "OK" to commit some heinous act.

    The SCOTUS is about is about the law, not about feelings. In truth, we NEED judges who can set aside their personal feelings to correctly and fairly interpret the law.

    IMO, Alito is not scary because of his feelings about 12-year-old girls. He is scary because of how he would interpret the law. This diary touches on that nuance, but obilerates it when the diarist gets snared by a liberal web site, trying to play on people's fears.

    -- "Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppression...will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." -- Thomas Jefferson

    by Todd Johnston on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:22:53 PM PST

    •  I totally agree (none)
      I'm against Alito because he's a conservative and I'm a liberal.  He could very well overturn Roe v. Wade.  But I'm really sick of hearing all this discussion completing demonizing Alito.  Maybe I'm missing something here, but his record (as I read on Wikipedia) doesn't seem like the ultra-ultra nutcase conservative picture people are painting here.  Yes, he believes that women have to tell their husbands if they want an abortion - but he did include exceptions to the rule (like if it's not the husbands baby, she's being abused, etc.).  And in another case he ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood New Jersey, saying that a ban against "partial-birth" abortion was unconstitutional.  I'm not defending the guy, and I'm not saying he wouldn't do terrible damage to reproductive rights if he gets to the SCOTUS, but I think he at least deserves fair, fact-based criticism.
    •  Liberals are so damn nice and forgettable (none)
      I see what you're getting at here but don't think for a second that Republicans are above inflammatory tactics.  In fact wouldn't the opposite of inflammatory be boring and bland tactics?  

      I'm sick of Democrats playing it so damned nice that people fall asleep listening to them.  Sell the message for God's sake - don't write a treatise and expect everyone to fall over their feat trying to read the whole boring mess of it.

      •  Inflammatory tactics (none)
        are all fine when they are based on truth. I'd be the first person to cheer if someone put an ad up to scare people into the realization that we are headed back to the days of back alley abortions. But the accusations in this diary are baseless and we should be ashamed to make them. There's plenty in Alito's record to be appalled by so we don't need to make stuff up.
      •  Anger is a valid emotion (none)
        but inciting it is base. The current GOP leadership and their public relations firms have used this technique to successfully divide the nation, encouraging us to shout so that we cannot hear one another.

        Standing up for yourself and your beliefs with strength, passion, and even justifiable anger is completely appropriate. But first, you'd better be informed, and you'd better be right.

        -- "Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppression...will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." -- Thomas Jefferson

        by Todd Johnston on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:34:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  politics in the USA, 2005 (none)
      You claim a liberal political web site should avoid inflammatory tactics--but I don't see a POLITICAL logic here that defends that assertion.

      You can't ignore the current political context-- which is dominated by the extreme political rhetoric on the far right.  The right wing in this country, for example, not only considers Miers liberal -- they called Ruth Bader Ginsberg "child molestors' best friend."

      This rhetoric has not hurt the far right at all-- as  you know, they now control all branches of government.  So that's the political context.  Is asking liberals to pull their rhetorical counter-punches at this point good advice?   I don't think so.

      I'm sympathetic to your implied wish--that the Supreme Court be nominated in less politicized way.  But that's not reality, is it?  

      I had my own blog for a while, but I decided to go back to just pointless, incessant barking. --Cartoon Dog, The New Yorker

      by markymarx on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 06:22:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Amen on you update Chumley (4.00)
    I am firmly with you on this one.  Is there no one who understands that proximity to a crime doesn't mean that someone is guilty?  Because if people don't get that, they better be prepared to be rounded up on the street randomly because a crime supposedly happened somewhere near them.  That is the slippery slope we go down when we allow people to be treated as criminals simply because they are near by.  

    For all those people who expressed such a dim view of rights in this country, just imagine your teenaged kid gets busted for say a joint and you get strip searched beacuse you are related to them and they live in your house.  I hope you think about the realities of controling the people around you and try to imagine being fucking TEN without ANY power of self-determination and realize how FUCKED UP it would be to be victimized by both your parents and the police. The average middle class suburbanite could perhaps not imagine this kind of life, but life for a huge number of people in this country is not within their power to control it.

    Hm - I guess you could say that I am angry about the support that this ruling seems to be getting...

  •  OMG (none)
    Alito talking at the WH upon bush's announcement on MSNBC.

    Is it me or does he ACT like a perv? Sorta high, sorta lispy, the head is rocking back and forth.

    Reminds of the creepy HS counciler who came on to me. Blech!

    Is it that they have no shame, or are their closets so full of skeletons, they don't see a short-eyed mouth breather in their midst?

    [ Anyone who thinks my bark is worse than my bite, has never seen me bite. ]

    by dj angst on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:34:34 PM PST

  •  Alito is not a moral degenerate (none)
    I highly recommend the Wiki reference on Judge Alito.

    Read the section covering all of his decisions.  He has held up some interesting cases, some of which would not qualify him as a "moral degenerate," but rather as a compassionate, humble and honest person.

    It's OK to be angry and to feel moral outrage.  I believe most of us have felt the same thing.  It's another thing, however, to shoot from the hip and verbally castigage a judge for a decision we don't agree with.

    Rather than finding what you don't agree with, try finding what you do agree with (regarding his decisions), and see if you can find some middle ground.  Calling Alito a moral degenerate based on the reality of his work is being a bit hard to the left.  If you want to be taken seriously by more people, learn to moderate yourself a bit.

    •  Don't piss on my leg... (none)
      ...and tell me it's raining.

      We should flush him down the toilet on the basis of that single decision (strip searching 10 year old) and we are entitled to do just that.

      In addition, he's waddling and quacking. I feel pretty confident in my assessment: Duck.

      [ Anyone who thinks my bark is worse than my bite, has never seen me bite. ]

      by dj angst on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:44:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What? LOL (none)
      Moderate yourself, you are a bit hard to the right.

      Liberal, Christian, Feminazi, Mom.

      by TeresaInPa on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:58:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No not a moral degenerate (none)
      Just a wee bit of a troglodyte.  Like ruling (per Wiki) that the US Congress had no right even to pass the Family and Medical Leave Act.

      Somebody who'd probably be harmless if running the local American Legion meetings.

      But defintely a threat to America if on the Supreme Court.

      •  When it comes to the politics of debate (none)
        ... it's best not to show up to the debate with a shotgun.

        My point was not to use the ad-hominem attack as a tool for debating.  It displays a mental laziness usually associated with the right, and gives the other side more ammunition against us (i.e., "those zealots, haters!").

        If you want more people to read and support your arguments, then you must learn to refrain from ad-hominem attacks.  There are intelligent ways to discredit your opponent - calling them names is not one of them.

        (And for the record, in the past I called Bill Bennett a pig, but it was in response to his overt racist remarks.  It would have been a different situation if I was criticizing a seated judge about a past decision.  That, I believe, deserves a bit more thought and respect instead of shooting from the hip.  There's a big difference between someone like Alito and Limbaugh or Matlin, and our criticism should be as well.  Anything less makes us appear as zealots.)

  •  Well, then... (none)
    maybe he should just be on the Megan's Law Sex Offender list. Like, uh... some guy I went to high school with.

    Ick.

    "Lies, lies, lies, ye-ah... they're going to get you." --The Thompson Twins

    by modchick65 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:39:32 PM PST

  •  I'm watching Specter... (1.25)
    ...try to bore us into supporting Alito, and all I can think of is:

    "Go, Cancer!"

    [ Anyone who thinks my bark is worse than my bite, has never seen me bite. ]

    by dj angst on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:40:55 PM PST

  •  Only human beings have rights (none)
    Women are girls are not really human beings in George Bush's Washington.  

    This is the George Bush who takes pride it taking his wife out of the cabinet like a Bride Doll for everyone to admire.  Isn't he a lucky man, she is so tiny and cute, so demure, so quite, and, if she had a kitchen, she WOULD make cookies with pride.

  •  The REAL problem (4.00)
    is that the search warrant did not include the wife and child. Alito argued that the only reason it did not include them was because THEY RAN OUT OF ROOM ON THE PAGES. Total bullshit of course.

    In another case he was rebuked sharply by Chertoff!!

  •  What a useless discussion (none)
    all because someone trotted out the Nazi comparison.  What could have been productive, informative and enlightening conversation(all the things this site usually is) is now a pointless conversation about whether we should call people we don't agree with Nazis.  

    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro - HST, RIP

    by Chris Dub on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:34:57 PM PST

  •  Yeah, Yeah (none)
    but did they make the occupants of the house make a naked pyramid? Or, did anyone have their genitals laughed at?  See, no problem.  </snark>

    "It's been headed this way since the World began, when a vicious creature made the jump from Monkey to Man."--Elvis Costello

    by BigOkie on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:58:11 PM PST

  •  Someone with some Mojo (none)
    Should make sure Dean and the DNC communications people see this post and the ruling.
  •  Passion is No Excuse (4.00)
    Not to read the literal words in front of your face:

    This application seeks permission to search all ocupants of the residence and their belongings to prevent removal, concealment or destruction of the evidence sought in the warrant..

    Note that this language does not say "This application seeks permission to search all adults."

    It does not say "This application seeks permission to search all non-residents."

    It says all occupants.  

    No matter what you think of it philosophically, that language clearly would include a child, who was indeed occupying the residence along with her mother.  The only reason it did not was for the technical screwup (failing to incorporate the affidavit into the warrant.)

    People are conflating what was requested, and the reasons listed for the request.  That's dangerous where the language is quite straightforward.  This detracts from legitimate arguments against Alito being confirmed because it results in an argument that has no factual basis for it -- to wit, that there is something that the our society finds inherently wrong with strip searching a child.  In an ideal world, this might be the case, but in the reality based community in which the law is made it is simply untrue.  

    Strip searches, even of young children, are not per se unlawful.  They've been upheld in multiple contexts, including school, child abuse investigations and direct detentions of juveniles who were believed to be drug mules serving as fronts for adults (a very very common thing, sadly.)  Whether they are lawful is extremely fact-dependent. In other words, the concept of searching a child, including strip, for drugs is nothing new.  Alito is not the first judge to feel that way.  He won't be the last.  

    Given the hysteria and vitriol, though, it appears that this fact was not known to either the original diarist and many others chiming in on this thread.  Folks should examine why it is that they did not know.

    The only way a person can conclude from this case that Judge Alito is advocating strip searching of children is by deliberately ignoring the actual language of the case itself.  The only issue before the Court was the technical parameters of search warrants.  Alito did not say that the search was presumptively legal.  What he said is that it was not unreasonable for the officers to conclude that they had the authority -- based on the language and intent of the affidavit -- to do it.  If you don't understand the legal tests being reviewed -- in this case, the test to evaluate qualified immunity -- one could conclude, wrongfully, that he was advocating strip searching.  Unfortuantely for that argument, he wasn't.  

    To understand why this is not the truth, hoewver, one can look at the complete absence of language in the majority opinion says "thou shalt not search young children".  It isn't there, because even under the view of the majority, there is no categorical rule about them, and certainly not one that would apply when the real issue in the case is that the police search was, effectively, warrantless.

    It is not going to help the left one iota on the Alito fight to engage in hyperbole.  Given the dangerousness of this man's vote if he's elevated and the things already known about his rightwing views with certainty, making up strawmen is neither necessary nor prudent.  
    His defeat is going to requires real strategy, not histrionics that have no basis in any facts.

    My separate place for mental meanderings: Political Sapphire

    by shanikka on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 03:14:43 PM PST

    •  What a minute... (none)
      I do care about technicalities.  Technicalities are what make up our laws.  

      The warrant did not include searching the young girl in the house.   Should it have?  Apparently so according to the attached afffidavit.  Are strip searches of young children acceptable?  We can debate that later, there's no need to do it here.

      What remains is the fact that Alito seems to think that "close enough" works in this instance (and God knows how many more).  As in the cops almost had it right with the warrant and affidavit so let's just say it's good enough.  And that's not good enough for me.

      •  Well (4.00)
        The diarist was raising san about this case being an issue about searching young children.  It isn't, legally - and arguing differently is not a way to win the larger battle because it's too easy to shoot down.  (BTW I too personally never consider warrant problems to be "technicalities".  Which is why I did not refer to such a thing here.)

        As noted, the affidavit said, clearly, ALL occupants.  But the warrant did not.  Thus the only issue this court majority analyzed was whether or not the warrant defect was sufficient to presumptively strip the officers of qualified immunity.  The majority held it was because there was no other basis for the search that it could discern, and no other argument in favor of the search was offered.  

        But there is nothing in the majority decision that reaches their conclusion because of the age of the child involved.  It is grounded in the fact that there was no search authority (other than protective) for anyone other than the alleged dope dealer for whom probable cause had already been shown.  Had there been other "bad drug people" in the house besides the daughter and mother of the daughter, the outcome in this particular case might have been exactly the same (recognizing that the protective search angle deeply complicates the matter when we're talking about adults.)

        And Alito's dissent, given the reasoning used, would have been exactly the same.  The law of qualified immunity, which is what was at issue does not ask whether the acts of law enforcement are objectively OK to laypersons based on a layperson's understanding of right and wrong.  It asks whether a reasonable police officer would have concluded that his or her conduct was OK based on the level of understanding of the constitution and law that a police officer is expected to have when faced with a particular set of facts.  That's a lot greyer a legal area than you'd imagine.    

        Whether or not the majority agreed with him, Alito's position in this case is not a "wingnuttery" position grounded in it being absolutely acceptable to abuse children through searches, if for no other reason than, sadly, it is not deemed automatically abusive to do so in a variety of contexts, as I mentioned.  It is grounded instead in a reading of the qualified immunity law:  "Could (not did - that's left for a trial) these officers have reasonably concluded from the documents they had that there was a valid warrant?"  The majority said no, but Alito saying "yes" isn't all that difficult to conclude on the facts as are presented in that particular case.

        Hooting and hollering differently - when there is no actual basis to do so within the case itself - is definitely not a smart thing to do.  It just gives our opponents -- many of who are quite versed in reading cases and can recognize when folks' arguments don't line up with the facts -- easy targets to fire at in response.

        Nor do we need to do this .  Spending some time on Alito's really problematic cases is more than enough to fight tooth and nail.  Unlike Roberts, there are more than enough landmines for Alito without having to make stuff up just to put icing on the cake.

        My separate place for mental meanderings: Political Sapphire

        by shanikka on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 04:28:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Stupidity is an excuse, sahnnika (none)
      The WARRANT!!! What does that say?! Huh?

      Are you being intentionally stupid? The WARRANT is  the only meaningful document in this case and it does not say that they can search anyone in the house.

      You have two statements:

      Who can we search: John DOe

      Why can we search him: Drugs etc. And often times other people in the house have drugs.

      This DOES NOT equal "We CAN search other people in the house." This is so fucking obvious thta your argument highlighting the affidavit - a police only document that is not oked by a magistrate is ridiculous. Just cuz you use the owrd ocnflate does not make your right.

      Alito's decision here is legally indefensible and that's why he cites nothing. Read the fucking case before you act like you know a bunch of stuff - you just sound stupid!

      •  Two Points (none)
        1.)  Excuse you.  I'm neither stupid nor deserving of being yelled at for anything I wrote.  I have read the case.  I made that clear.  I also have practiced law for a very long time now.  I'm therefore fairly confident about my ability to actually read and understand a case.  So fuck off with the yelling (all caps) and insults to my intelligence, please.  As Barack Obama reminded us all recently in another context, it's perfectly OK to disagree without being disagreeable, as you have been here.  It's even advised, when you're talking about political allies.  You might wish to try that instead of being an asshole in your rhetoric without cause to do so.  Particularly with your allies in the larger fight against Alito (although not in agreement with you about this case.)

        2)  You're either being deliberately disingenuous or you're simply lacking meaningful understanding about the legal difference between a criminal case presenting the 4th amendment question of an invalid search and seizure vs. a civil case presenting the question of qualified immunity.  I'm not sure which explains your problem, but I do recommend that you go back and read the case again.  Or better yet, read yesterday's quite good diary by JustMe2 about the laws actually at issue in the Grooby case and why the entire argument about Alito being "wingnutty" and "a moral degenerate" by reaching the outcome he did in Grooby is simply irrational in the face of both what the case actually says and the law actually says.

        My separate place for mental meanderings: Political Sapphire

        by shanikka on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 10:52:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Regarding your update (none)
    The FACT is that Alito was willing to stretch police powers beyond the legal limits (in my opinion, and in the opinion of fellow judges) to approve the STRIP SEARCHING OF A TEN YEAR OLD GIRL. Period.

    Yes.  "Period".  Exactly.

    As in, it does not continue, "and therefore he is a pedophile".

  •  Wow. I am convinced! (4.00)
    Alito is a moral degenerate who should be arrested today! Any moment that he remains free is a travesty to justice!

    Pleeze.

    Let's stop Alito but not with pathetic, bullshit, over-the-top postings like this.

  •  Who cares? (none)
    I don't. If the little girl in question was violated and molested while she was naked, then I have a problem with it. But if she just had to take off her clothes for a quick look-over to make sure her law-breaking loser dad didn't stash some drugs on her person, then so what? We're born naked. And we've all seen naked people. What's the big deal? If she wasn't groped, photographed, or touched inappropriatly, then who the hell cares? I'm sure I'll find ot plenty of things I hate about this nominee, but this issue isn't one of them.
    •  Care much about the law? (none)
      There was no warrant for her search.  Nope, no warrant.  There was an affidavit, but no warrant.  Therefore, any search of her was illegal.  

      Tough beans but there it is.  

      The majority of judges in this case thought so to.  Nominate one of them to the Supreme Court - at least they can get a case like this right.

      Your whole "we're born naked" argument is really beside the point.

      •  I know, I know..... (none)
        The whole "we're born naked" was just in there for shits and giggles. Just meant to show how being naked isn't a big deal unless horrible acts were commited while being naked. Anyhoo, I read the part about the "no warrant" issue too, and I still don't think it was a big deal. Getting another warrant for doing something that takes 1 min is stupid and time consuming. I trust the police, and I always give them the benefit of the doubt...always. If they though the girl might have had something on her that her dad put there, then good on them for searching her. I like to see the cops vigilant. But you'd think from the title that the cops zip-cuffed the little girl, ripped her clothes off, put their nasty hands in places on her body that they don't belong, and then threw her on the pavement when they were finished with the ordeal. That's what I imagined when I saw the title and started reading the diary. Until, that is, I read on and learned what really went down. Either way, I wasn't there. But I do trust that the cops were professional while searching her, and obviously the judge did too.
        •  As a mom of girls (none)
          I can say with certainty it was a big deal for the child. Hell, my kids don't even dress or undress in front of me or one another; think back to being that age and then explain how this is a "no harm, no foul" situation.

          What's the clangor and the clamor? Throw BushCo in the slammer.

          by MissAnneThrope on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 06:01:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  "I trust the police... (4.00)
          ...and I always give them the benefit of the doubt...always."

          Oh, man. Where to start... That one sentence is a perfect illustration of what's currently wrong with the US. Blind trust in authority is an abdication of your responsibility as a citizen. It's the same thought process that led people to vote for Bush because he was "a good Christian." It's intellectually and morally lazy, and it's the single essential reason that totalitarians ever come to power.

          Britny Spears gushed, "Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens." Did you approve of that? Why or why not?

          Police are not always right. They are frequently right, yes. Most cops are good cops. But they also sometimes lie, abuse their authority, and close ranks to defend wrongdoers within their organization. And some police forces can become very corrupt.

          How do you stop that? Civilian oversight, that's the only way. Noticing when they do wrong, and calling them to account. Which is impossible, if the default assumption is to give them the benefit of any doubt. If there's a doubt, there's a danger signal. The doubt should be pursued and questioned until resolved by evidence, not brushed under the carpet.

          The reason this is important is that corruption and abuse in the police department is far worse for society that any individual citizen's crime. It damages society's own control structures, and destroys respect for the law.

          Police behavior needs to be exemplary. Sometimes it isn't. Citizens have to be constantly on the alert for signs that their law enforcement structure may be going bad. Automatic trust in the police short-circuts this, and is thus a very dangerous attitude.

          Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

          by Canadian Reader on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 07:09:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yes But (none)
        The absence of a warrant is not enough when you're talking about civil liabiity for police conduct.

        That's a sad reality, but reality it is.  The issue for civil liability is whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies to absolutely, without a trial shield the officers from liability.  The majority said "No", not on these facts, because of the warrant absence.  Alito said "yes" because he concluded that the police officers involved had a reasonable basis for concluding as they did (warrant is valid) at the time of their actions.

        This is not a black-and-white case.  The law never, ever is.

        My separate place for mental meanderings: Political Sapphire

        by shanikka on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 04:34:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  the issue is the thought process (none)
    that allows a judge to think it's OK to permit widenening of a search warrant.

    It has nothing to do with the rhetoric - the name calling .. folks .. it's truly pathetic.

    Yes, we should be concerned it appears that Alito thinks that an arbitrary extension of search warrants is justfied.

    Yes, we should question how he came to the conclusion this is acceptable.

    It's about the Law, not about whether he is a @$%&@, or a @#%& or a @$%@*@!. {at least so far, anyway).

    It's early - let's not blow things out of proportion using labels - that's what freepers do.

    I say, we are better than freepers.

     

    •  We should question him on this (none)
      but how do we get the possible real-world ramifications of a judge that believes in expanding police power to people?  A lot of peoples' eyes would glaze over if you just told them that "Alito thinks that an arbitrary extension of search warrants is justified".

      They need an example.  There may be more, but this is a powerful one.

      Jumping on the politicalcompass.org bandwagon: (-3.63, -3.03) - Does that make me part of the right wing here?

      by someone else on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 06:00:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Alito may be a moral degenerate (none)
    but there isn't any evidence of that based on his decision in this case.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

  •  ALITO IS A PEDOPHILE CHILDMOLESTER!!!!!!!!! (3.50)
    Why not use that for your title.  How I wish this wasn't on the recommended list, how embarrassing.  I hope the community has enough sense to ignore this as an argument against Alito.
    •  Because playing dirty never works? (none)
      I'll pass that on to the Swift Boaters.

      And the real-life ramifications of this case are that Alito supported the illegal strip-search of a 10-year-old when a majority decided that it wasn't legal.  Decontextualizing this case and turning it into a semantic argument about the use of the warrant and affidavit ignores the real world and that there was a child who was strip-searched without being on a search warrant.

      I think that's a big deal both from the strip-searching aspect and the abuse of a search warrant aspect.  This is not a guy I want deciding my civil rights for the next 30 years.

  •  I'm backing down from "moral degenerate" (none)
    But I do think this Doe v Groody case is our strongest entry point in opposing this nomination.

    My suggestion for talk shows, LTEs and other interview opportunities is in this diary.

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 04:52:37 PM PST

  •  Four things: (none)
    1. I want to hear Bush, Frist, Alito et al explain to the public - over and over on TV - why strip searching a ten y.o. is necessary.

    2. Alito is a big fat misogynist.

    3. The only reason to strip search a ten y.o. is if s/he might have a nuclear device or the trigger to a nuclear device stashed in his/her drawers. Otherwise, you just can't justify it.

    4. Anyone else think the case name "Doe vs Groody" is pretty darn funny?

    ePluribus Media - Truth be told.

    by Stoy on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 06:13:17 PM PST

    •  What? (none)
      Are you aware of any case in any circuit where any judge declared that it is unconstitutional to search a child? The majority in Doe v. Groody would have had no problem with the search if the child's name was on the warrant and supported by probable cause to believe that the drugs would be hidden on her person.
      •  I didn't say it was unconstitutional across the... (none)
        board, but yeah, of course you're right, given a warrant.

        My comments were off the cuff.

        I am not a lawyer, nor do I play on on TV.

        ePluribus Media - Truth be told.

        by Stoy on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 07:12:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Read the case (none)
      Non-lawyers can see it was about a warrant formality.

      The issue had nothing to do with the age of the child. He was arguing technicalities of warrant process. Whether you agree with his analysis or not, it is outrageous to shout out that he is in favor of strip searching children.

      In Groody Alito says:

      "I share the majority's visceral dislike of the intrusive search of John Doe's young daughter, but it is a sad fact that drug dealers sometimes use children to carry out their business and to avoid prosecution."

  •  The drug war is a war against you- (none)
    Just as the war on terror justifies he Patriot Act, the war on drugs brought a reign of terror on the American family, far more harsh than the drugs themselves ever did.  Zero Tolerance laws left kids and their mothers homeless, thousands of women sent to prison for much longer sentences of "conspiracy" (simply for living with a dealer)than the dealers, because male prisons were overpopulated.  Families torn apart, having to shell out millions to defend the "black sheep" of the family, the one caught up in a drug deal.  Teens arrested, rather than getting help.  Price of drugs approach commodity figures, making it a more attractive venture.

    And what success have we had with the war on drugs? Nadda. Zip, Zilch, zippo.

    So it will be with the war on terror, it will be the American family that gives up it's rights Same with the war on Abortion, and the next war they dream up to take rights away.

  •  super sensitive democrat cry babies! (none)
    While I don't think Alito is necessarily a "moral degenerate", I do believe there are a lot of super sensitive cry babies on here.

    And being super sensitive cry babies, and thus being too scared to say anything at all for fear of offending someone, is part of why our Democratic leaders have been flailing and losing!

    It's that whole poop-or-get-off-the-pot cliche. If anything our Democratic leaders are so busy acting wishy-washing, so busy being afraid to confront the win-at-any-costs, sometimes actually morally degenerate Republican leaders and pundits and PR agents, that that's why our latest and greatest mass political cliche has become "where are the Democrats?"

    For whatever reason, it is adventageous for Alito to be a right wing zealot, out of touch with mainstream America. It has helped him get to wherever it is he was trying to get to in his professional and personal life. Unfortunately, this place is NOT on the Supreme Court.

    And if calling him a "moral degenerate" is dumb, so be it. At least it's enough to get people to bloody say something and stop wringing their hands in the corner, pacing back and forth in dismay, too scared to speak up for fear of some sort of imaginary retribution from the Political Correctness Police, or the Republican Party, or who knows, maybe their mommy.

  •  Case seems to ignore profile of meth users (none)
    From a brief reading of the profile of meth users, compiled by National Institutes of Drug Abuse, it would seem that there would not be probable cause to search persons in the 12-17 year old age bracket. Their use pattern has been declining. Ten year olds don't even seem to show up as statistically significant meth users, nationwide.
      The more common profile of meth users would be in the 18-31 age category, according to NIDA, and statistically still would only amount to 6.2 percent of the total US population.
       Moreover, if there were a strong probable cause, say finding evidence in and around a suspect, the proper protocol would seem to be to call in specialists trained in Hazardous Materials. Meth is highly toxic, and a thin pair of latex gloves might not be the best BSI (body substance isolation) technique for the protection of the investigating officer (s) personal safety. In the case of intravenous users, besides the toxicity of the chemical, there is a higher probablilty of contaminated needles and other "sharps" that could lead to exposure to HIV, Hepatitis A or B, etc. Not to mention drug interaction, if there were use of cocaine, heroin and or meth in various combinations, from a pattern of past use.
       On a lighter note, one of the potential benefits to the officer somewhat contaminated by meth in the course of a search could be a decreased appetite. Say, for powdered donuts.
  •  Read the case in full ... (none)
    And it seems that there were a series of escalating, non-scientific conclusions jumped to by the school, and in typical bureaucratic fashion they escalated the incident, and then tried to ignore the scientific facts.
      * Math teacher concluded that pupils were dilated, when in fact medical examination showed they weren't, twice. Still Math teacher refused to believe it, and more distressing, even nurse found it hard to believe.
      * Student was taking diet pills and vitamins.
      * Since any medication was against school policy, they then ordered student to an urgent care facility.
       Let me interject here that it appears to me that this is really where the "comedy of errors" escalated out of control. From my first aid training, it seems that when a patient has an altered level of consciousness, and unknown pills, the correct protocol to follow is to get them to the Emergency Room quickly, and notify them that they might have a poison-control/drug overdose problem.
      Instead, they sent the young girl to an urgent care facility, which is often a lucrative practice run by physicians (ie non-hospital setting), which some have criticized the medical industry for using to "cherry pick" profitable patients, leaving some of the less well off patients to fill the charity rolls of the hospital, and sticking the hospital with higher costs and more difficult cases.
       Now listen to what happens to the poor girl at this non-hospital setting: urine test, and, by her account, numerous botched attempts to take a blood sample from her, anywhere between three and five unsuccessful attempts. Non-consentual search and seizure samples are getting a little rough on the patient. Nowhere in the filing does it mention that she is sent to the hospital.
       Judges decide in favor of the school, that their efforts were reasonable. In spite of the obvious fact that the Math teacher was dead wrong about the condition of the pupils, and the statement that they were diet pills and vitamins--backed up by testing--actually removes the basis for probable cause. It appears that we are not dealing with the wisdom of Solomon here.
      Worse, in a judicial system supposedly able to handle cases from shoplifting to capital crimes, none of the three judges seem interested in finding out whether the school's medical practice conformed to the protocols for the area hospitals. It seems to me, based on a quick reading of the case, that not only was the search unreasonable, but that the handling by the school nurse, the non-hospital care unit, and the technician trying to draw blood, raises serious questions as to the quality of care, to say the least.
      The case does little to inspire confidence in any part of the chain-of-custody here. The courts, from handling medical malpractice cases, should be well familiar with what is expected of school nurses, ambulances, police search procedures, and so on.
       After looking at this, I see at least three judges who don't even know how the emergency care system is supposed to work in a municipal and county system. Which is information one could get from going to a nine-hour first aid/CPR course. That, to me, is even scarier than the underlying facts of this particular case. The rights and needs of a patient in a medical case come dead last, whatever the scientific evidence. This would never become a Sherlock Holmes story, which of course would apply deductive reasoning.
  •  Not a strong case to attack Atilo on (none)
    I found the case interesting to read.  I mostly agree with the majority opinion on this, but it wasn't a 100% clear cut case, and given that there are a number of other genuinely controversial calls that Atilo has made, this seems like the wrong case to highlight.

    First off, as shanikka points out, the question of whether or not we should strip search 10-year-old girls was not the central legal question in this case.  There was nothing in the majority opinion to suggest that strip searching 10-year-old girls is indefensible in all cases.  We all have our opinions on the subject, but that doesn't seem to be at the heart of the legal matter that Atilo was asked to rule on.

    It seems that it would have been possible for the cops to obtain a warrant allowing them to search the girl.  The cops argued that they thought they had such a warrant.  The majority opinion was "no, that's not what the warrant says."  Atilo wrote that it was reasonable for the cops to assume they did, even if by technicality, they didn't.

    The central question was "should the cops be personally liable for illegally searching this girl?"  Apparently, the majority thought so.  Atilo thought that no, they shouldn't.  They thought they were doing their job...they thought the warrant allowed them to perform the search.

    I'm glad I'm not a judge, because I don't have to decide these things.  I think it's a bad, bad thing for cops to strip search little girls without a watertight warrant for doing it (i.e. probable cause that she's packin' heat and will use it).  I have no problem throwing out every last bit of criminal evidence they might find on her should the warrant not be watertight.  

    From what I read in this case, I don't believe that the warrant justified the search at all, and that the majority was right to rule that the warrant didn't cover the search.  I agree with one of the posters here who said "there's no such thing as a technicality when it comes to warrants".

    Where I'm hesitating a little is: do I think that a cop should be personally civilly liable for executing an illegal search in this case?  It doesn't appear that anyone is accusing the cops of molesting this child, or that the cops got any personal gain from performing this search.  If the cops made a credible case that they thought they were doing their job, and they thought they were covered by the warrant.  It's not like cops make enough money that they can just suck it up and accept a personal civil suit.

    I can't agree fully with Atilo on this case.  He seems to argue that the warrant did allow for the search of the Jane and Mary Doe.  However, I think trying to incite outrage in this case could backfire.  There's too much in Atilo's "commonsense" reading (his words) that would potentially appeal to a middle-of-the-road voter.

  •  Swift Boat the Fucker (4.00)
    Nobody likes a pervert or sicko or Ped and to get this line of :Alito Believes in Strip-Searching Ten Year Old Girls out there is going to ruin him. LAs others have said let Fox, Rove and those other weirdos try explaining the facts. The average American aint going to be looking at legal minutae.
    If Dems want to stop this extremist they have to learn to use the aces and play dirty.
  •  Libby's book: 10 year old girls raped by bears (none)
    ..quotes from the indicted aide's novel: "At age 10 the madam put the child in a cage with a bear trained to couple with young girls so the girls would be frigid and not fall in love with their patrons. They fed her through the bars and aroused the bear with a stick when it seemed to lose interest

    New York Daily News - Lloyd Grove's Lowdown

    I even thought it was exxageration but look at Amazon's "Search inside the book":

    7 pages with references to  bear  in this book:
    1.     on Page 81:
    "... the women and watched the secret ways. At age ten the madam put the child in a cage with a bear trained to couple with young girls so the girls would be frigid and not fall in love with their patrons. ..."
    2.     on Page 82:
    "... eyes to hear the secrets of a man used for the first-night training by a house that could afford a bear. "Is there feeling?" a bucktoothed man asked. "At least on the first night, even after a bear?" Ueda glanced at ..."

    Amazon.com: Books: The Apprentice : A Novel

    The Republican "values" are not for me: I'd rather be a sinful heathen than shun reality while condoning torture, stealing, treason and bigotry

    by lawnorder on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 01:00:49 AM PST

  •  Do I think (none)
    that Alito is a slobbering pedophile, lusting to have uniformed officers strip and degrade our children? No.

    Do I think that this diary is an inappropriate frame? No.

    Remember, on death ground, fight. Don't wring your hands and parse his decision. Make the Republicans do it. On national television. Because you're running TV ads with crying children.

    They want you extinct. Don't you get that?

    Hit them with values. Say that he believes that women and children are property. Tell them he wants people executed, innocent or no. Paint him as a goosestepping fascist who would surf the Internet looking for kiddie porn if he didn't think any technology beyond the plow was the Devil's work.

    Understanding isn't going to work. Negotiation isn't going to work. Fight, dammit! This is what they've been doing to you all along, and here you go bending over to let them do it to you again. Fight!

    •  Terrible plan (none)
      If you want the left to become the same as the lying scum on the right, to become leftwing Hannitys and O'Reillys and Libbys, lying and distorting and Swiftboating, then you do everyone a disservice.  We need to fight back, yes, but with the truth, not lies and spin.

      "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

      by Slim Tyranny on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 05:43:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not what I want (none)
        because it's not about me, it's not about "right" and it's not about the truth.

        Even the media uses "liberal" as a dirty word. They sell joke hunting licenses for liberals. Their commentators say they want you in zoos and beaten with baseball bats.

        I'm telling you to stand up for yourselves. I'm telling you to fight like you have something worth fighting for, to beat them until they're down and then kick them, by any legal means required.

        Much as we want to believe the battles go to the just, usually the battles go to the ones willing to keep fighting.

        What I'm saying is don't do their work for them.  Don't parse their decisions, don't explain the facts for them, don't bail them out.

        •  Ha (none)
          But this isn't parsing, this is about the simple truth and facts of this case.  This is about a legal decision.

          There's plenty to attack Alito on, distortions aside.

          "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

          by Slim Tyranny on Wed Nov 02, 2005 at 07:26:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Then distill the truth from this case slim... (none)
        ...read it multiple times and strip it down to it's basic truths (no pun intended, really).

        Because the truth in this case is some heavy artillery to use against wingnuttery in all it's ugly guises.

        It would be a shame not to use the artillery just because the arsenal had a few scary monsters guarding it.

        You want to downsize the government?
        Fuck you. My government defends the American people.

        by deafmetal on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 07:47:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly (none)
          And if you strip it down to its basic truth, Alito's opinion in this case was about lowering the search and seizure standards for ALL americans by granting the police qualified immunity when questions arise w/r/t search requests, affidavits and warrants.  It has nothing to do with what people here want to propagandize with.

          This was a legal case, you can disagree with Alito's analysis and conclusions (as I do), but that's the simple truth involved.  The rest of it is O'Reillyian.

          "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

          by Slim Tyranny on Wed Nov 02, 2005 at 07:24:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Just wrote a LTE to the NY Post in response (none)
    to John Podhoretz's absurd (as always) column about how the left will be unable to filibuster such a swell fellow. Now let's see if the Post has the guts to print it.

    Dear Editor:

    Once again, John Podhoretz is only listening to the far right wing extremist echo chamber.  With the unpopular President Bush's approval ratings down to between 35 to 39% in all recent polls, neither red state Democrats nor blue state Republicans have to concern themselves with following his lead on the nominee, Samuel Alito, who approved of a strip search of a 10 year old girl on a warrant for her father.  They are free to filibuster the nominee or vote him down and will be applauded by the 61 to 67% of Americans who know that Bush and the Republicans do not have the best interest of America in mind in anything they do.

    The rules have changed, Mr. Podhoretz.

    Regards,
    Adigal

    "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

    by adigal on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 06:02:11 AM PST

  •  One other interesting fact - both free republic (none)
    and red state are silent on this case.  Not touching it with a 10 foot pole.  Any takers on going over there and posting the case, throwing up some flares, getting the word out?? I would do it, but I have been banned twice and can't get on. HA!!!

    "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

    by adigal on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 06:10:53 AM PST

  •  On Leaflets (none)
    It seems like whenever some humane and rational principal is about to be perverted by right-wingnuttery -- e.g., state constitutional amendments banning marriage equality for gays -- some inventive soul on the right seems to come up with a propaganda pamphlet that neatly summarizes their argument in the most graphic, shocking and thought-circumventing terms.  They then (I guess) litter neighborhoods with these pamphlets, and apparently they have at least some impact ("Wait -- Democrats want to ban the bible and let them queers marry?  Quick, honey, let's go vote!).

    Er . . . Why doesn't someone on our team do that with this one?  In the same neighborhoods.  

    Just wondering.    

  •  I know there are nearly 500 comments already... (none)
    ...but I do have one last thing to say, and that is, thankyou Chumley.

    For your very long update especially, this kind of follow-through on what was obviously a very difficult diary to have authored, in light of the "hysterical" outbursts from both sides of the issue (myself possible even too maybe).

    For what it's worth, I find it so disheartening that people seem to find it so easy to discount and deny taking a stand on an issue, just because that issue taps into a really raw and painful nerve.

    You know if it hurts, that might just be because there is something wrong with it.

    Try feeling a little more, isn't that what is supposed to differentiate us from our republican friends?

    You want to downsize the government?
    Fuck you. My government defends the American people.

    by deafmetal on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 07:42:07 PM PST

  •  Point taken. (none)
    Isn't the truth harsh enough?

    Still, I don't think y'all are in a place to turn down tactics.

    Nevertheless...

Leslie in CA, desmoulins, slappy1218, Thumb, Grassroots Mom, RobertInWisconsin, Monkeypox, tmo, pb, Sean Robertson, Peanut, Mogolori, vtdem, Phoenix Woman, mbc, tundraman, dabize, Steady Eddie, copymark, slinkerwink, tyronen, Windowdog, Zackpunk, human, ubikkibu, Pen, geverend, markymarx, TrueBlueMajority, Tuffy, catfish, mem from somerville, Mr Murder, MikeCapone, janinsanfran, Maryscott OConnor, jkennerl, R Dub, c, sphealey, Stoy, Shockwave, donna in evanston, Wintermute, CleverNickName, fink, TeresaInPa, chrisjaun, nepstein, azale, 3rdeye, blksista, frisco, caliberal, theran, Muboshgu, Abou Ben Adhem, PanzerMensch, freespeech, Poika, bookbear, 22state, hubcap, Ruth in OR, sclminc, Bruce The Moose, RubDMC, soonergrunt, fabooj, RumsfeldResign, upnatom65, concernedamerican, Hose B, EricS, mentaldebris, araina, bonddad, SamSinister, brooklynben, dlender, sissy, MD patriot, Jeffrey Feldman, HippyWitch, PBnJ, gayntom, buckhorn okie, mrblifil, Kerry Conservative, xopher, Transmission, Aquarius40, chimpy, threecents, Colman, Ignacio Magaloni, amanuensis, L0kI, LondonYank, cognitive dissonance, k2winters, jbindc35, Rocket, Fe, itskevin, Spindizzy, fumie, PatrickUK, Alna Dem, wader, Jaffa, deafmetal, Moody Loner, SC Democrat, rcvanoz, NewDirection, Stand Strong, coldwynn, DianeL, sp0t, TXsharon, cosette, JCPOK, Jujuree, Black Maned Pensator, GN1927, joan reports, MamaBear, dreamsign, kaekee, Magorn, A Ball of Lint, HollywoodOz, Mrcia, produceus, horsewithnoname, inclusiveheart, dcookie, firetop, Matt Jordan, Noisy Democrat, eleanora, glattonfolly, mungley, gmhowell, MikeInFlorida, schuylkill, DrReason, Steven D, kd texan, BrianVA, AlwaysDemocrat, Timroff, matthewpm, Shapeshifter, Thirsty, gloomrider, averageyoungman, John3, drofx, trueblue illinois, Fabian, maybeeso in michigan, Tarindel, LiberalFromPA, supak, harmonium, liberal atheist, HellofaSandwich, Elise, Alegre, aitoaster, pursewarden, OpherGopher, someone else, Closet VB Coder, Luetta, clammyc, Jason Soup, Nordic, stagemom, Ranting Roland, teresab, Monkey In Chief, curtadams, IL dac, majcmb1, DissidentGirl, Gegner, babatunde, kazoo of the north, Tool, SBandini, el zilcho, miguelmas, Cannabis, serrano, Nasara, formalist, Spathiphyllum, DaveVH, SuthernAhia, JanF, maracuja, rumbacher, grayscale, Druidica, Ian H, pmc1970, occams hatchet, Legolas, poco, BlueInARedState, liberalminded, Yellow Canary

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site