Justice Roberts votes for warrantless searches

[BadHabit]

Justice Alito did not vote on the case, which involved a wife calling the police on her husband and allowing them inside even though the husband did not consent.

Roberts sided with Scalia and Thomas in his dissent from a 5-vote majority.

Roberts and his creepy con colleagues voted for more government intrusion and less personal freedom.

This should come as no surprise to anyone--the attempted erosion of liberty and enlargement of government power under conservative policy. Those of you who voted for Bush--this is what you voted for, whether you realized it at the time or not.

Luckily, the other justices were clear--If police want to come into your home and you refuse them, they have to come back with a warrant. Your home is still your castle, no thanks to Roberts.

Spin it how you like, the upshot is that personal freedom from government intrusion has been upheld--for now. The police have not been granted expanded power over our lives--for now.

I expect the more obtuse or deceptive among us will respond that the husband possessed cocaine---even though that has nothing to do with the issue before the Court. Don't bother.

[mbmojo]

You're okay with the majority view that a women's right is subordinate to those of her husband's?

[Wasatch Walt]

You're okay with the majority view that a women's right is subordinate to those of her husband's?

Not really, but Orophilus thinks it is way cool.

[sandan]

Justice Alito did not vote on the case, which involved a wife calling the police on her husband and allowing them inside even though the husband did not consent.

Roberts sided with Scalia and Thomas in his dissent from a 5-vote majority.

Roberts and his creepy con colleagues voted for more government intrusion and less personal freedom.

This should come as no surprise to anyone--the attempted erosion of liberty and enlargement of government power under conservative policy. Those of you who voted for Bush--this is what you voted for, whether you realized it at the time or not.

Luckily, the other justices were clear--If police want to come into your home and you refuse them, they have to come back with a warrant. Your home is still your castle, no thanks to Roberts.

Spin it how you like, the upshot is that personal freedom from government intrusion has been upheld--for now. The police have not been granted expanded power over our lives--for now.

I expect the more obtuse or deceptive among us will respond that the husband possessed cocaine---even though that has nothing to do with the issue before the Court. Don't bother.

Good job, you portrayed the case in front of the court exactly as it was.

[BadHabit]

You're okay with the majority view that a women's right is subordinate to those of her husband's?

I'd rather you call me names than intentionally distort issues.

[oreophilus]

Justice Alito did not vote on the case, which involved a wife calling the police on her husband and allowing them inside even though the husband did not consent.

Roberts sided with Scalia and Thomas in his dissent from a 5-vote majority.

Roberts and his creepy con colleagues voted for more government intrusion and less personal freedom.

This should come as no surprise to anyone--the attempted erosion of liberty and enlargement of government power under conservative policy. Those of you who voted for Bush--this is what you voted for, whether you realized it at the time or not.

Luckily, the other justices were clear--If police want to come into your home and you refuse them, they have to come back with a warrant. Your home is still your castle, no thanks to Roberts.

Spin it how you like, the upshot is that personal freedom from government intrusion has been upheld--for now. The police have not been granted expanded power over our lives--for now.

I expect the more obtuse or deceptive among us will respond that the husband possessed cocaine---even though that has nothing to do with the issue before the Court. Don't bother.

You could have made it a little more scary if you would have given Justice Roberts his full credits: He's CHIEF Justice Roberts.

Do Justices have a probation period where they can get fired before their probation period is over? Would CHIEF Justice Roberts be fearing that? Or is he just a NEOCON CHIEF?

[BadHabit]

You could have made it a little more scary if you would have given Justice Roberts his full credits: He's CHIEF Justice Roberts.

You are correct.

[consumerbydesign]

I heard a quote from Roberts today on NPR, it went something like this.
Your space is private. When you start to share that space, things change.