A Strip Search of Novak’s Column Yields No Facts
A Strip Search of Novak’s Column Yields No Facts
In his column this morning, Novak took issue with the assertion that Alito voted to approve the strip search of a 10-year-old girl:
The ad claimed Alito, as a federal appellate judge, “even voted to approve the strip search of a 10-year-old girl.” This distorts a case where a suspected drug dealer’s daughter was searched, visibly not manually, by a female police officer in the presence of the child’s mother.
Here’s what actually happened, as described by the court:
Once inside, however, the officers found no visitors, but only John Doe’s wife, Jane, and their ten year old daughter, Mary…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.
That sounds like a strip search. And as the court makes clear, the 10-year-old girl was patted down, so Novak’s claim that the girl was only searched only “visibly not manually” isn’t true. Later in the decision, the court specifically points out that the girl was “touched by a female officer who was searching for contraband.”
Also, Novak fails to point out that the girl was not covered by the warrant obtained by the officers. That’s why the majority found “Searching Jane and Mary Doe for evidence beyond the scope of the warrant and without probable cause violated their clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Bob Novack, journalist and liar.
November 21st, 2005 at 10:36 amPlease filibuster. Please. I would love to hand the MSM and the Democratic Party their biggest defeat in history. Seating Alito after crushing the filibuster would do just that. It would further demoralize the lying left.
November 21st, 2005 at 10:44 amSo you believe that, if a legitimate search warrant is served at a particular time and people-other-than-those named on the warrant are there, that these folks should be…what? Ignored? Let go because their names are not on the warrant?
And your callow, cloistered naivete is showing:
“That sounds like a strip search…”
A pat-down and a “drop your pants and turn around” equals a “strip-search”?
So if you go to a “strip” club, you expect to see….raised shirts?
November 21st, 2005 at 10:45 amand 10-year-olds have to drop their pants why exactly?
November 21st, 2005 at 10:49 am“Alito is against race based preferences like affirmative action – like most of America is. That is a good thing.â€
“Bush can appoint Condi to VP and try to “heal†the country. The first female and black VP – major achievementâ€
-The Northeast Dilemma
November 21st, 2005 at 10:50 amTomaig, You’re trying to rewrite the law. How many 10 years do you see at a strip club?
November 21st, 2005 at 10:52 amNed- Novak= Liar. Your post is clearly offtopic. Who mentioned filibustering?
So if you go to a “strip†club, you expect to see….raised shirts?
So if you order apple pie, you expect to eat… oranges?
November 21st, 2005 at 10:52 amNo warrant to search mother or child. No attempt to obtain one. No imminent threat or other probable cause. This search was a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. Alito’s dissenting opinion in this case proves beyond any reasonable doubt that he is not qualified for his current job, much less the Supreme Court.
November 21st, 2005 at 10:53 amtomaig-
May you never find yourself somehow in the wrong place at the wrong moment. Easy to assume that only people somehow different from yourself are subject to infringements of their rights. You seem to think that when there is the SUSPICION of a crime, that all humans in the vicinity are to be assumed to be suspects, including 10 year old children. Welcome to the police state.
Comparing a strip search to a strip club is truly naive. One exists for the titillation of the observer. Which one do you think this is? To ask someone to remove their clothing is a strip search.
An you continue to obfuscate the underlying argument – that Novak reported in direct opposition to the facts of the case – the young girl WAS touched and was required to expose herself without due process.
November 21st, 2005 at 10:54 amIt would further demoralize the lying left.
Uh huh. Oh, and thanks for ‘05. We hope to be similarly ‘demoralized’ after November ‘06.
November 21st, 2005 at 10:55 amAndy – you’re boy Joe Xerox Biden did. Please try and resist this. It makes it more fun when you lose.
November 21st, 2005 at 10:56 am#10 – Nov. 2005 means nothing for Nov. 2006. I know you like to think so, but the GOP still holds all the cards. AND we will strangle you with them. Why – you deserve you hateful liars.
November 21st, 2005 at 10:57 amAmendment IV is quaint and represents a pre-9/11 mindset.
November 21st, 2005 at 10:57 amNov. 2005 means nothing for Nov. 2006.
Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night.
November 21st, 2005 at 10:59 amI was buying grass from some friends in high school when the State Marshall came to serve an arrest warrant on said friend(traffic violation).
November 21st, 2005 at 10:59 amWhen we openned the door huge clouds of pot smoke blew into the Marshall’s faces. I had a HUGE bag of pot in my pants! They served the warrant, arrested my friend, and I went home and got really high.
but the GOP still holds all the cards. AND we will strangle you with them.
Is your deck made out of rope, dumb metaphor guy?
November 21st, 2005 at 11:00 amHere we go with these “lies” agian. We’re all liars – not one person on the right is a liar. Not one. DeLay, Cheney, Rummy – all pure upstanding guys that would NEVER lie. Right NeD?
November 21st, 2005 at 11:00 amMichael Chertoff wrote the majority opinion in that case denying the constitutionality of the search.
Did NoFacts mention that, by any chance?
November 21st, 2005 at 11:00 amI see you still won’t explain your inconsistancies, NED.
November 21st, 2005 at 11:01 amNortheast,
November 21st, 2005 at 11:05 amYour politics rank right along with your knowledge of grammar. “You’re” is a contraction of “you are” and your is the adjective showing possession.
lynn
Get to know Northeast Dilemma!
From his Blogspot…
* Age: 29
* Gender: male
* Astrological Sign: Aquarius
* Zodiac Year: Dragon
* Industry: Banking
* Occupation: Technology Support
* Location: New York : New York : United States
Ohhhh! An Aquarius!
With such informative posts such as:
http://northeastdilemma.blogspot.com/2005_02_06_northeastdilemma_archive.html
To Learn more about NeD:
http://nerepublican.blogspot.com/2004/12/intro_15.html
Or, Log Cabin buddies can contact him at:
neastdilemma@yahoo.com
November 21st, 2005 at 11:06 amAlioto is going to rewrite the way laws work to make conservative & conservative religious views the norm. We know that. He isn’t moderate. He isn’t mainstream. Of course, most of us aren’t mainstream either. But between you and me, I’d say we are alot closer to mainstream than he or his views are.
btw – the reichtwing trolls on this blog aren’t even mainstream within the bounds of the republican party, so NO, I’m not going to debate you about your bullshit. What, do you think my time is as worthless as yours?
November 21st, 2005 at 11:06 amWow, NED, it seems like the truth is getting a little too close to that halcyon bubble of denial, lies, bargaining, and fantasy you use to pretend you are not a pathetic wanna-be brownshirt. Novak at least gets paid handsomely to pave the way for the new Reich, what is your story?
November 21st, 2005 at 11:07 amAnd Tomaig is even more perverse than ever but shows a typical GOP predilection for using power to abuse women and children, maybe he’s closer to a Phil Giordano Republican than he’d like to admit.
Ntodd – If you think the 4th amendment is quaint then you should ask your representative to sponsor the appropriate legislation to have it rolled back.
Of course, that will pass when hell freezes over.
Don’t expect that you can get it accomplished by placing thugs in the judiciary.
November 21st, 2005 at 11:08 amCouldn’t agree more, boing.
The right loves life because they are moral.
November 21st, 2005 at 11:10 amThey outlaw abortion and abuse women because they hate.
They refuse to see how this fails.
Everything a Republican does to control behavior when clothes are off is rooted in hatred.
November 21st, 2005 at 11:12 amGod. What rock do these people crawl out from under? love this post from ‘The Northeast Dilemma’ ….
‘but the GOP still holds all the cards. AND we will strangle you with them’
First this challanged person wants to strangle me with cards–– good luck, pally. Why? Because I ‘deserve you hateful liars.’ I mean, it’s interesting. Wingers are not only incredibly, mind-bloggling stupid, but functionary illiterate at well. I wonder if he types with his feet, or can manage the use of simple tools?
November 21st, 2005 at 11:15 amNtodd – If you think the 4th amendment is quaint then you should ask your representative to sponsor the appropriate legislation to have it rolled back.
I *think* that was a bit of a joke…
November 21st, 2005 at 11:16 amAverage TV Viewer – Not rooted in hatred. Puritainism is more like it. What they try to do is supress natural human instinct – to have sex. Unfrotuante but true. I think to them, sex is “dirty” unless married and procreating. What a dull world!
November 21st, 2005 at 11:16 amWhy does tomaig support forcing innocent ten year old girls to drop their pants?
November 21st, 2005 at 11:19 amI think it USED to be puritanism. Make no mistake, these people would exterminate pro-choice people if they could get away with it.
November 21st, 2005 at 11:19 am“visibly not manually” – What the hell is he trying to say here? I’m not sure how you could search somebody “visibly” or “visually” or whatever he means unless they were completely naked. The only thing I can think of is that after the pants were dropped there was a visual inspection as opposed to an invasive cavity search. Thanks, Bob, I feel much better about the whole thing now.
November 21st, 2005 at 11:20 amPretty sure NTODD was making a joke. Alberto Gonzales pro-torture memos used the same language concerning the Geneva Conventions.
It is the danger of parody. Especially when reality continues to be more absurd than our imaginations.
November 21st, 2005 at 11:20 am#30
It reminds him of his father’s moves on him.
November 21st, 2005 at 11:21 amStop picking on Bob Novak! That, and make Patrick Fitzgerald go away!
November 21st, 2005 at 11:27 amNeD is cleary on a path that will lead him to only more hatred. We must understand though, for someone to hate others so much, he hates himself even more. When someone of this pathology feels threatened, he attacks.
You must ask yourself, who is NeD REALLY trying to convince. His talk of strangling and choking and his crazy rants about having all the power are just goofy. I feel bad for him though. If he believes himself, he is lonely and if he doesn’t, the desperation is palpable.
November 21st, 2005 at 11:28 amdrop their pants and turn around – Bob’s just a little jealous.
Call me later, Big Guy!
November 21st, 2005 at 11:30 am#26 – I think it’s fear.
November 21st, 2005 at 11:30 amNtodd is o’ding on snark these days.
Use is while it’s legal, bro!
November 21st, 2005 at 11:32 amTell me again, what was gained in ‘05? From my perspective, nothing. Neither side has gained anything. The dems held onto the two governships they already had and Arnie got a wake up call. If you call that a victory, I am really looking forward to ‘06.
November 21st, 2005 at 11:33 amNED is off changing his personal info…
November 21st, 2005 at 11:34 amToo funny, jparker
Tomaig likes seeing ten-year-old girls who weren’t named in search warrants be made to drop their pants and submit to fondling, for the same reason Michael Ledeen thinks America needs to invade a country every so often an “kick the crap out of it”: To scare the others into abject submission.
November 21st, 2005 at 11:34 am#21 – You wouldn’t think a 29 year old would come off as such a cranky old bitch.
November 21st, 2005 at 11:35 amNED is off changing his personal info…
Too funny, jparker
There’s always Googlecache! Go hit it, quick, and save the pertinent information!
November 21st, 2005 at 11:35 amTo Learn more about NeD:
Don’t do it folks. A 28-year old single may complaining about busing in Delaware. Oh, Delawarians, what hath you wrought?
November 21st, 2005 at 11:36 amThe fact is that the way this is supposed to work is that the police can serve the warrant. If other people are there and they have reason, they can detain those folks, return to the judge, and get the warrant they need. A warrant doesn’t permit them to go hog wild outside the scope of the warrant.
November 21st, 2005 at 11:38 amRolling back protections in the Constitution… hmmm… smells like legislating from the bench to me.
November 21st, 2005 at 11:39 amNED does not have any children and if he had a 10 year old daugther, I would bet you no one would strip search her. We need to protedt our children. What do you expect from the Republicans?
November 21st, 2005 at 11:42 am“AND we will strangle you with them.” NeD
I personally am terrified -TERRIFIED- of a pasty 29 year old Aquarian Tech Support who “weeps” while watching Desperate Housewives. Are you gonna scratch our eyes out too?
November 21st, 2005 at 11:55 am#
NED does not have any children and if he had a 10 year old daugther, I would bet you no one would strip search her.
Comment by Mary Poppin — November 21, 2005 @ 11:42 am
Mary- procreation would imply that a Support Technician actually has sex on occasion (with women). My understanding is that this is a rarity, even in “the Year of the Dragon”.
Sorry- couldn’t resist. I just can see little neddy in my mind….right down to the digital calculator watch.
November 21st, 2005 at 12:00 pmJP– NeD has all the sex he can handle–manually!
November 21st, 2005 at 12:21 pmOne might say….”digitally”.
(Get it, NeD? My attempt at techie humor)
November 21st, 2005 at 12:22 pm“So you believe that, if a legitimate search warrant is served at a particular time and people-other-than-those named on the warrant are there, that these folks should be…what? Ignored? Let go because their names are not on the warrant?”
That’s what the Constitution says, anyway. Pretty clearly. Maybe you don’t like the Constitution- fine, move someplace else, stop bothering us with your fascist tripe.
November 21st, 2005 at 12:57 pmNED is so full of hate that he doesn’t even realize what would happen if the Republicans launch the nuclear option.
The filibuster won’t be there if the next Democratic President appoints someone that the Republicans find objectionable.
This is a moot point, of course, since Democrats tend to appoint reasonable, qualified people to the bench. Even the Republicans don’t have enough crazed yahoos to filibuster obviously competent judges.
The point will also be moot, when the Democrats regain control of both houses of Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008.
NED’s brand of stupidity and evil is fading fast.
November 21st, 2005 at 1:32 pmThe 4th Ammendment …
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the PERSONS or things to be SEIZED.
… the police, in this case, felt that while their warrant did not specifically mention the wife and daughter, precedent had been set for them to search said persons. I believe Alito’s dissent was well reasoned and fair … I also think the majority can draw a clear literal line from the 4th ammendment to prove their case.
November 21st, 2005 at 1:54 pmFrankly, it sounds like a Scooter Libby or a Lynne Cheney novel.
-GSD
November 21st, 2005 at 2:01 pm#55 – liberal foot soliders in the MSM would NEVER allow the GOP to get away with filibuster if they were the minority party. Lt – you’re too filled with stupidity to understand why it is undemocratic to filibuster Bush’s nominees to the Court.
November 21st, 2005 at 2:02 pmJust get used to syaing “Justice Alito”.
November 21st, 2005 at 2:04 pmA 10 year old girl should not be strip search. We need to protect our children from this evil admin.
November 21st, 2005 at 2:16 pmRe #60: I wasn’t aware that a standing Senate rule could be undemocratic. You wingers are all for democracy when it means everybody has to vote your way.
November 21st, 2005 at 2:20 pm[...] UPDATE #2: Regarding the Doe v. Ggroody case, the anti-Alito blog Think Progress insists that patting down a suspect’s pockets is somehow equivalent to a manual strip search. 14 responses to ‘Novak on the Strip Search Case’. RSS feed for comments and Trackback URI for ‘Novak on the Strip Search Case’. [...]
November 21st, 2005 at 2:31 pm#63 – if the GOP is smart, they will use the tools of the senate majority to their advantage. Democrats are the ones trying to change the rules because you get crushed at the polls.
November 21st, 2005 at 2:32 pmThis Novak line was the one that struck me the most:
“Alito’s defenders make the legitimate argument that the assault against him ends up as a defense of drug dealers.”
I thought the unconstitutional strip search already established that the 10-year-old girl was not a drug dealer.
November 21st, 2005 at 2:33 pmthis goes back to how stupid NED is: way back in the #12 comment he says that the GOP will strangle the Dems with cards. What a complete friggin’ moron.
November 21st, 2005 at 2:43 pmAh NED..
November 21st, 2005 at 2:52 pmPlease explain how the MINORITY PARTY can change the rules as you so welll.. uneloquently put it?
Seeing as your pals control all the branches of the gov, why not just do what every the hell you want? Could it be that you knowe your asses will be kicked in 06? Are you scared? You know, like that frightnened little sack of crap you call a president?
HAHA I love comment #59.. Well played.
November 21st, 2005 at 2:54 pmYou’re wrong wrong wrong. A pat down is not a physical strip search. A physical strip search is when the cop manually probes the various orafices of the accused. Just looking is still a visual search. Novak didn’t lie.
November 21st, 2005 at 3:39 pmHow is that a lie? Seriously, as a liberal, the truth of the situation is closer to Novak’s interpretation than to this ridiculous idea of a strip search. I’d urge everybody to stick to the facts, and leave the propaganda to the religious right. There’s more than enough rope in the truth.
November 21st, 2005 at 3:43 pmThe Northeast Dilemma
Ahem…pot…kettle…black.
Both the Dems AND the Republicans deserve to hang from ropes for what they have done to the military.
November 21st, 2005 at 3:45 pmNED,
How funny you’d say such things, when republicans during the Clinton administration contradict themselves and you. Republicans are the party of opportunism, hypocrisy and hate.
Orin Hatch:
“[The filibuster is] one of the few tools that the minority has to protect itself and those the minority represents.” (Congressional Record, October 4, 1994)
“[T]he Senate can and should do what it can to ascertain the jurisprudential views a nominee will bring to the bench in order to prevent the confirmation of those who are likely to be judicial activists. Determining which will become activists is not easy since many of President Clinton’s nominees tend to have limited paper trails… Determining which of President Clinton’s nominees will become activists is complicated and it will require the Senate to be more diligent and extensive in its questioning of nominees’ jurisprudential views.” (Address of Senator Hatch before University of Utah Federalist Society chapter, February 18, 1997)
“While the debate about vacancy rates on our federal courts is not unimportant, it remains more important that the Senate perform its advice and consent function thoroughly and responsibly. Federal judges serve for life and perform an important constitutional function without direct accountability to the people. Accordingly, the Senate should never move too quickly on nominations before it.” (Congressional Record, June 22, 1998)
Senator Don Nickles
“I think it’s important that we not undermine the capability of a significant minority in the Senate to slow down some legislation that may be detrimental to our country. When you get 41 Senators, there’s usually something wrong or there wouldn’t be that [level of] concern.” (Daily Oklahoman, November 29, 1993)
Senator Christopher Bond
“On important issues, I will not hesitate to join a filibuster.” (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, April 11, 1993)
Senator Richard Lugar
“…clearly the thing that distinguishes the Senate as a legislative body is unlimited debate… a traditional aspect that most Senators have felt very important for 200 years.” (Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Floor Deliberations and Scheduling Hearing, May 18, 1993)
“It is a function of our Constitution that minorities are protected in many, many ways… so a little time passes so, in fact, the public might be informed of what the issues are and may weigh in and people may change their minds.” (Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Floor Deliberations and Scheduling Hearing, May 18, 1993)
Senator Jeff Sessions
On March 8, 2000, cloture petitions were necessary to obtain votes on the nominations of both Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon to the Ninth Circuit. This was after Republican opponents repeatedly delayed action on them – for over four years in the case of Mr. Paez. Senator Bob Smith openly declared he was leading a filibuster and described Senator Sessions as a member of his filibuster coalition.
Senator Arlen Specter
On the nomination of John Ashcroft to be Attorney General:
“And there have been threats of filibuster. And if John Ashcroft is as bad as the witnesses on this side of the table have characterized him, as bad as the senators have characterized him – if he’s that bad, they know how to stop him.” (Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, January 18, 2001)
Senator Specter was asked if Senate Democrats should filibuster the Ashcroft nomination. “Well, that’s exactly right. If John Ashcroft is as bad as they say he is, then they ought to use whatever means they can to defeat his nomination.” (CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, January 21, 2001)
Senator Rick Santorum
On the nomination of Henry W. Foster, M.D. to be Surgeon General:
“Based on what is known, as well as what is not because of Dr. Foster’s lack of candor, I am not convinced that he has the potential to unite the country by addressing the broad range of health-care issues facing the nation. It is for this reason that I will vote against cloture on the nomination and against Dr. Foster if a confirmation vote comes before the Senate.” (The Philadelphia Tribune, June 23, 1995)
Former Senator John Ashcroft
On the nomination of David Satcher, M.D. to be Surgeon General:
“Ultimately, a senator has the right to notice and to full debate on the issue. And that’s what a hold guarantees. I think the Senate deserves an opportunity to debate and understand these issues and the purpose of my placing a hold in this process is to make sure that we have an opportunity for that debate to be fully and thoroughly conducted.” (Federal News Service, January 20, 1998)
Former Senator Bob Dole
Former Senator Dole defended the filibuster as a way “to protect the rights of the minority. It’s not just a Democratic tool when Republicans are in charge or a Republican tool when Democrats are in charge.” (USA Today, November 23, 1994)
Former Senator Bob Smith
On the floor, former Senator Smith, citing the Fortas, Rehnquist and other filibusters as precedents, said, “It is not a new path to argue and to discuss information about these judges. I do not want to hear that I am going down some trail the Senate has never gone before by talking about these judges and delaying. It is simply not true. I resent any argument to the contrary because it is simply not true.” (Congressional Record, March 9, 2000)
Former Senator Jesse Helms
Saying his rights as a U.S. Senator “were trampled on” by the Democratic Senate majority and the Clinton Administration, former Senator Helms and former Senator Faircloth began a filibuster to block approval of the nomination of North Carolina native Walter Dellinger to be an assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel. Former Senator Helms framed the debate in terms of the Senate’s tradition of protecting “the rights of the minority, even a minority of one or two.” (States News Service, October 6, 1993)
Former Senator Nancy Kassebaum
“I’m a believer that the filibuster is important as a tool for the minority…” (The Times-Picayune, August 7, 1994)
Former Senator Simpson
“The rap they give us is our use of the filibuster as a check on government controlled by one party, that that’s somehow acting in bad faith. That is an incredibly simplistic view. Republicans were duly elected too. The voters elected us. I know, sad to believe, based on the principles we believe in. We ought to have the right to have those principles judged by the American people.” (Federal News Service, October 8, 1994)
“Well, come on, if the president wants to see less frequent use of the filibuster, I suggest that he and the members of his party consider the idea of greater consultation. We are ready to work. Talk to us honestly.” (Federal News Service, October 8, 1994)
Former Senator Malcom Wallop
“What makes the Senate such a wonderful institution is what also makes the Bill of Rights such a wondrous document. Like the protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the Senate’s rules sometimes serve to frustrate or thwart the whims and passions of a free and democratic society. That is a virtue, my colleagues, not a vice.” (Senate Rules and Administration Hearing, March 10, 1994)
“No majority is permanent – and no minority, either. This, therefore, is the essence of America’s unique concept of liberty: it is vital that the minority has the right to be heard and that it is protected against the tyranny of a majority of one.” (Senate Rules and Administration Hearing, March 10, 1994)
“The Founding Fathers had a specific scheme in mind in order to protect minority rights, and the filibuster is essential.” (States News Service, October 26, 1994)
November 21st, 2005 at 4:06 pmNED – Got any actual “facts” to go with your so-called “arguments”? I’m guessing NED is really 9 and not 29 guaging his grasp of the issue and his “speechifyin’”!
November 21st, 2005 at 4:09 pmYou’re wrong wrong wrong. A pat down is not a physical strip search. A physical strip search is when the cop manually probes the various orafices of the accused. Just looking is still a visual search. Novak didn’t lie.
Actually, the legal definition of “strip search”, according to the Merriam-Webster Legal Dictionary is “a search for something concealed on a person conducted after removal of the person’s clothing.” Doesn’t have to involve probing of the orifices or other “inappropriate touch.” You may want to examine the term, “intimate search” or “body cavity search”, as you’re confusing those with “strip search.”
All that’s necessary to qualify a search as a “strip search” is the process of exposing the body by removing clothes to facilitate a search for items concealed on the body.
So, yes, Novak lied. They were both strip searched.
November 21st, 2005 at 4:13 pmAs someone that’s has been strip searched multiple times, in multiple states. (Inventing new and interesting ways to get arrested..) I can tell you for a fact, that the discription given in the court report is of a strip search. And yes it was a violation of thier rights, there was no probable cause to search the wife or child and all it really accomplished was humiliating them at an already stressful time.
November 21st, 2005 at 5:04 pmWell, for those who have forgotten what the 4th Amendment says, here it is. I realize this isn’t really fair to the Nazis. The 4th Amendment has been hacked to nearly to death by lawyers and judges. But here it is in the full glory of it original intent. The founding fathers, and those who refused to adopt their constitution without more protections, clearly envisioned search warrants that were very specific as to what and who was to be searched. I know this is a very foreign idea in America today, but the expectation was that legal authorities would have evidence of a crime being committed, and then could use this to go before a judge with a very specific search to be committed.
This was long before modern law and the Patriot Act where law enforcement just decides who they think is guilty, then does a search as a fishing expedition to try to get some evidence to back it up. Not to mention simply using the search itself as a threat to its intended victims. The search of a person or property has become an act of destruction and humiliation in itself. Thus the threat of such a search is used to try to get citizens to give up their rights.
So here’s the real 4th amendment, as a relic of the time before our free nation became a police state.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
November 21st, 2005 at 5:54 pmYou know, I am getting kind of old, but I think I remembers years ago getting a shot for TOMAIG.
November 21st, 2005 at 6:43 pmNovak is such a dirtbag. He defends unwaranted acts like strip search on a 10 year old girl, but I betcha he would be jumping up and down like Rumplestiltskin if something like that were to happen to his granddaughter.
November 21st, 2005 at 8:43 pmHere’s the problem. There are details that are purposefully being left out in order to somehow turn Alito into a monster. Now he may be a monster, or he may be incompetent, but that doesn’t give us license to purposefully leave out facts that may not support our agenda. That’s not honest.
I thought it was neo-cons who lacked nuance. It doesn’t suit us. All it does is create inadvertent propaganda. Remember, removing details is how “Curveball”, and “mobile biological agent factories” were sold to us.
November 22nd, 2005 at 3:42 amWhat details are being left out? Alito isn’t a monster but he does have a twisted view of the constitution and a willingness to pursue that view even when it produces obviously unjust outcomes such as the warrantless strip search of a 10-year old girl.
If you have specific complaints with the way this story has been presented, tell us exactly which facts or details were left out and how they distort the story and back these points up with proper citations.
Meanwhile, the original post is entirely correct that Bob Novak is liar or an idiot in this case and tomaig in comment #3 is entirely incorrect. From the description given by the court, Mary and Jane Doe were certainly subjected to a strip search by any reasonable definition of the term.
November 22nd, 2005 at 4:43 am“Bob Novack, journalist and liar.”
Comment by snookered — November 21, 2005 @ 10:36 am
No, Just liar.
November 22nd, 2005 at 6:38 amI-RIGHT-I and MIGHTY APHRODITE are KKKers. Check out Post No. 188 here: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/22/schmidt-marine/
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:56 pmAlito’s dissenting opinion in this case proves beyond any reasonable doubt that he is not qualified for his current job, much less the Supreme Court. Disgusted Alito is more than qualified to occupy a seat on the High Court. The supporting affadavit to the warrant clearly stated that occupants of the house could be searched. Police relying on this searched the suspect’s wife an daughter. The suspect had previously had infractions involving drugs and was a disbarred lawyer. Do you suppose he was beyond using his family to hide drugs. Be realistic and wake up to the reality of crime in America today
November 26th, 2005 at 6:06 pmwhat an idiot…these are my favorite posts … when an idiot tries to point out that all “ists” must be stupid because this particular “ist” used bad grammar…but then the retard uses the wrong word–> “functionary illiterate” showing what an idiot he himself really is….. har hardy ha ha and a big LOL
“I mean, it’s interesting. Wingers are not only incredibly, mind-bloggling stupid, but functionary illiterate at well. I wonder if he types with his feet, or can manage the use of simple tools?—-quoted from drindl — November 21, 2005 @ 11:15 am
and by the way…i haven’t researched this topic but, if i have a warrant to search a location suspected to be the site of an illegal activity and at the search site there are individuals present, it does not seem unreasonable to search those individuals reasonably suspected of being associated with those involved in criminal activities…ex. why not shove all the contraband down the daughter’s pants and have her walk down to meet “uncle criminal” in the parking lot.
the left…protecting the “civil” ? rights of criminals and terrorists at everone else’s expense…stealing our paychecks..taxes.. “we are a rich country and as such..we antiamericans have a “civil” right to your wallet to fund programs to destroy our national integrity” thats human rights activism
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/functionary
December 23rd, 2005 at 6:06 amelton john
elton john
December 27th, 2005 at 12:49 pmNaked Girls Beyonce Naked Naked Teen Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 8:51 pmSusan
April 4th, 2008 at 1:17 amJessie
April 4th, 2008 at 1:17 amTeen Girls Teen Mpeg Ass Teen
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 12th, 2008 at 4:28 pm