Your niggling, Bruce. You're also failing to acknowledge that it was the most liberal court of appeals in the nation (as well as the most overturned) that supported the police in this issue. And, it was also one of the most conservative judges in that circuit court that wrote the dissenting opinion.
That, and you don't know how Scalia will decide the issue if it goes before him. You only know what others lead you to believe what he will do. Besides that, he's only one of 5 "conservative" judges on the court. Alito, Roberts and Thomas may decide that that is too much police power, or agree with Kozinski that the law can not be applied equally across the socio-economic spectrum. You need to start worrying about those "liberal" judges just as much as you worry about the "conservative" ones. They all bear watching. On Aug 26, 2010, at 2:59 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote: > > On Aug 26, 2010, at 2:32 PM, Francis Drouillard wrote: > >> >> On Aug 26, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote: >> >>> >>> On Aug 26, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Francis Drouillard wrote: >>> >>>> I don't agree with your analysis of the likely outcome of this case when >>>> it reaches the Supremes. >>> >>> >>> Look at the history of the right wing of the Court (Scalia in particular); >>> I can't think of a single case where Scalia has not sided with the police >>> over defendants. >>> >>> Don't count on the right wing of the court to save you; you're neither a >>> cop or a powerful corporation. >> >> You are incorrectly attributing this atrocious decision to court >> conservatives. It is liberals on the court that are expanding police powers >> in this case. > > Go back and read the thread...my comment was in response to your "I don't > agree with your analysis.." > > Regardless of the ideological bent of the judges that made the decision in > the 9th, it is a fact that the conservative wing of the Roberts court > (particularly Scalia, Thomas and Alito) sides almost invariably with the > police over defendant's rights. > > I especially fear a narrow decisison that doesn't address the GPS tracking, > but that the police entered his property to attach it, meaning any time that > you're in public the police woul have the right, without a warrant, to attach > a tracking device to your car or person. > > The Court has already ruled that merely being in a car that is stopped by > police abrogates your 4th amendment rights against warrantless search, iirc > Scalia wrote the majority opinion on that one. > > -- > Bruce Johnson > University of Arizona > College of Pharmacy > Information Technology Group > > Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "StrataList-OT" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/stratalist-ot?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/stratalist-ot?hl=en.
