Personally, I believe that as a policy decision it would be good to allow restricted, but legalized abortion. I also know that the Constitution does not protect a right to choose (have any of you read the Roe v. Wade decision? It is full of faulty arguments, invented rights, and unjustified interpretations of the Constitution). So it is possible to be sympathetic to the plight of women without pretending that the Constitution says something that it doesn’t.

Finally, I would like to point out that judges decide cases with specific fact patterns. Their holdings are only to be taken in context of the case presented and can only be applied to similar cases. A Supreme Court ruling can never have the same scope or power as a legislative act because it is necessarily limited to the circumstances that govern it. Much has been said about Alito’s judicial history without taking into account the specific context of his previous holdings. This is error, the fact is we do not know how Alito will rule on a potential case in the future. All we know is that he is a brilliant and distinguished scholar whose interpretation of the Constitution should be accorded some level of respect given his demonstrated command of the legal issues. That is good enough for me.

I don’t know what to tell you… I still think you are wrong.

Strip searching a ten year old child on the spot, in spite of the fact that there was no warrant for her, and only because she happened to be related, and she might have concealed drugs in her, and that might lead to the capture of a drug dealer… absolutely warranted the strip search of the child?

The response is too absolutist for a situation that had too many “ifs” for my taste.

I then went on to support why I believed Alito’s support made sense by saying we 1) shouldn’t be acting in deference to drug dealers (of any type of drug) and 2) that said drug dealers were likely to have a larger impact on society than police strip searches ever could.

I do not believe that strip searches should be enaged upon without a warrant (which in this case the police did have … they also stated that while not explicitly acknowledged in the warrant, they believed said warrant allowed them to search all the house occupants) nor am I for the roll back of ccivil liberties. In this case, I think the police exercised sound judgement based on probable cause and precedent … and that’s what Alito said as well.

Ryan makes this into a macrofocued concept when all I was arguing were the merits of this case. Trying to expand Alito’s judgement on this particular case into saying that “he supports stip searching little girls” was, in my opinion, an oversimplification and disengenuous. That’s all.

Where’s YOUR outrage?

Setting the tone for a four-nation swing through the region, Bush told Asian leaders that freedom is on the march and cannot be stopped in their part of the world. He bluntly told Chinese leaders that economic freedom in China would inevitably break their hold on power.

In amarillo texas (a great example small city with a big meth problem), the DEA has discovered 200-300 meth factories. These are just the ones found. Your idea of the ‘big meth dealer’ is just as whacko as every other semi-illiterate anecdotal preconception you’ve posted. See the difference between you/us is that we actually check the ‘claims’.

As for the real point, searching someone without a search warrant is not only unconstitutional, it’s UNAMERICAN. Your justification of this action means you’re nothing more than another rightwing police state retard. WHACKO!

Franklin was thinking of the current republican values when he said!

Benjamin Franklin:
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.

So in otherwords you think the ‘drug in question’, which is generally associate with black people, deserves different responses. In otherwords, I was right about your bigotry.

Whacko republican fascist!

Well, for the guy(s) cooking it in their kitchen.

“Meth, while popular, is not the only drug in question as well, of course.”
Comment by Giacomo — November 15, 2005 @ 10:01 pm

Of course it is not the only one. That goes without saying.

However –and this is something nobody seems to be talking about- abuse is not limited to substances such as Meth. I have personally seen kids get high on: glue, paint thinner, paint, sprays, and other chemicals that can easily be obtained at any hardware store, supermarket, etc.

But that was not my point. I was trying to highlight how readily available meth is due to its fairly bare-bones manufacturing and distribution. Also, some of the chemicals I listed above probably wouldn’t raise a flag for a lot of adults.

Meth, marijuana, and other drugs are so easily available to middle and high school kids because they get them from their friends… at school. Thinking that drugs is a problem that only happens to the other kids in the neighbourhood and not yours, is a little too optimistic. And we have to consider that fact before granting search powers to the police.

See? It is a very self-centered, selfish proposition, really: It could happen to my kids –I don’t know that I want the police strip-searching them.

As I said before, thinking that bad things only happen to bad people is wrong –bad things are not punishment from some deity for our sinful actions. Getting caught in a legal tangle can happen to anyone. In general: I want the law to protect my family as well as myself from any abuse, by any authority.

If that protection granted to my loved ones also happens to be extended to some rotten elements, well, so be it. I’d rather have it that way. Specially considering that we have had some nutcases, in this very web site, advocating the use of torture on anyone who might, perhaps, maybe, potentially, could be involved with the “bad guys”.

How exactly are we to determine who are those “bad guys” is anybody’s guess. Maybe we will know they were the bad guys after the confess under the sheer pain of the torture.