Quote:

---

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody 2004, 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.

---

Quote:

---

What he objected to was that a family was allowed to sue the police when their ten year old girl was strip-searched without a warrant.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
The warrant specified searching a man. Strip-seraching the girl was done w/o a warrant. That would be a little like having you strip-searched because the guy on the sidewalk might have slipped some contraband in your pocket.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
The warrant specified searching a man. Strip-seraching the girl was done w/o a warrant. That would be a little like having you strip-searched because the guy on the sidewalk might have slipped some contraband in your pocket.

Sorry Auraptor, but that's what the Constitution is for: to protect us against that sort of thing.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Does anyone here know what the girl herself thought of all this?

---

Quote:

---

Hero, please free that innocent lab...
or you might be getting an angry visit from PETA...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I happen to know a girl who was searched (but not strip-searched) in her home because her mom's husband was a suspect in a homosexual murder. Now, that guy is a lot of unsavory things, but he's neither a homosexual nor a murderer. It was extremely traumatic for the girl. I think it would be traumatic for anyone.

---

Quote:

---

Doe v. Groody is just one of a series of cases in which Alito pushed to narrow the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Alito has filed more than a dozen dissents in criminal cases and cases involving the Constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure - nearly always voting against individual rights (except, in the Rybar case described in Fact Sheet #1, the right to possess a machine gun).

---

Quote:

---

Current U.S. Homeland Security Secretary and long-time Republican federal prosecutor Michael Chertoff, who was then Alito's colleague as a judge on the Third Circuit, wrote the majority opinion disagreeing with Alito. Chertoff asserted that if the court were to accept Alito's position, it would "transform the judicial officer into little more than the cliche 'rubber stamp.'" Id. at 243. Moreover, the Chertoff majority described the facts of the case as "a particularly bad instance" for the court to allow a wide interpretation of the search warrant. Id. at 242. Alito's dissent is out of the mainstream of Fourth Amendment law.

---

Quote:

---

Paragraph 17 of the affidavit reads as follows: This application seeks permission to search the premises of [John Doe] *** Center St. Ashland, Pa. and his red VW Rabbit bearing Pa. registration ********** as sales of methamphetamine have been made from the residence and the vehicle. The search should also include all occupants of the residence as the information developed shows that [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. App. 498a (affidavit). Paragraph 20 of the affidavit reads as follows: The application seeks permission to search all occupants of the residence and their belongings to prevent the removal, concealment, or destruction of any evidence requested in this warrant. It is the experience of your co-affiants that drug dealers often attempt to do so when faced with impending apprehension and may give such evidence to persons who do not actually reside or won/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 police arrive. App. 498a (affidavit). Paragraph 21 “…for *** Center St. Ashland, Pa., the residence of[John Doe] and all occupants therein.” App. 498a (affidavit).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
So anyway, to reiterate the facts - the warrant ONLY specified the guy, the wife and young daughter WERE strip-searched, and it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

I tire of your lies.

---

Quote:

---

want to search ALL persons found on the premises

---

Quote:

---

You know I just hate it when people post-erase

---

Quote:

---

Auraptor,
You know I just hate it when people post-erase. I REALLY should remember to quote every little phrase. The missing one was that they were merely searched, but not strip-searched.

---

Quote:

---

Sorry Auraptor, but that's what the Constitution is for: to protect us against that sort of thing

---

Quote:

---

And now you want to chase your tail all over again as to what the warrant said, and why Alito allowed for others to be searched, etc, etc, etc.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

And now you want to chase your tail all over again as to what the warrant said, and why Alito allowed for others to be searched, etc, etc, etc.

---

Now Auraptor, I know you really don't think this way. The warrant is just words on paper... but so is the Constitution.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
BTW, here is the Fourth Amendment in its entirety:

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by me, the oracle extraordinaire:
But what you have to remember is that no one in government or law inforcement would ever think like that.
Remember, they're the good guys...
We shouldn't ever question them, ever.
Remember we have freedom of speech, so we should never ever use it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Auraptor:
Guess we'll just have to trust our duely elected officials and let them use the powers granted them by those darn words on paper.

---

Quote:

---

Soon to be posted by Auraptor:
Blah blah blah you’re an Idiot Blah blah blah you’re an Idiot Blah blah blah you’re an Idiot Blah blah blah

---

Quote:

---

Does Alito know the Constitution? I don't think so. I just read the Fourth Ammendment (Thanks you Rue) and it seems pretty damn clear to me. You'd have to apply some pretty weasly thinking to support the whole ten-year strip-search thing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
This has nothing to do w/ Judge Alito, and I wish everyone could just admit it. It all has to do w/ vilifying and denying President Bush, even when he's made a very legitimate and competent choice in Judge Alito.

---

Quote:

---

BTW AU, Hitler was a MAN who lied well.
Einstein was a MAN who conjured well.

Bush and his gang are MEN and WOMEN, not shiny examples of Saint-like humanity to be thrust upon a pedestal and worshipped.
(if you already knew that, sorry, you just make it sound as if you didn't...)

---

Quote:

---

Auraptor
You ignored the relevant comments I made, and responded w/ inane insults. Nothing in your post suggest any form of logic, so I'll pass on your recommendation. Generally when one responds w/ out addressing any specifics and heads straight into name calling, they don't know what they're talking about. You are a prime example. Thanks

---

Quote:

---

Auraptor
1. Judge Alito comes in with the most experience of any nominee in over 70 years.

---

Quote:

---

Auraptor,
The A.B.A ... thinks very highly of Alito, twice now awarding him with their highest rating ... “well qualified”

---

Quote:

---

SignyM
And, what that "well qualified" means is....

He hasn't taken any bribes, or been dishonest (except in several cases where he should have recused himself but didn't).

the ABA also noted three areas of concern:

1) "a tendency for stridency to enter into Alito's written decisions, especially dissents"

2) a concern that his "personal beliefs have entered into his judicial decision-making" and...

3) "a concern about whether or not the results of the nominee's judicial decision tend to favor identifiable categories of litigants and reflect a bias"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
The affidavit was improperly written because it allows searches of others in the house.

---

Quote:

---

But it is also clear that the reason to search occupants was as potential purchasers or as places of concealment for the drug dealer. But the DRUG DEALER WASN'T HOME. The only people there was the mom and her daughter. Neither was purchasing drugs bc the dealer wasn't home, and neither was acting as a mule bc the dealer wasn't home.

---

Quote:

---

Auraptor, you've got to look at the big picture. I've interviewed and ranked probably hundreds of professionals by now. You learn to differentitate between one skill and another. I've alos testified against very smart scientists who twisted data to argue their case. I know lawyers. What I've learned is that it's possible to have someone brilliant, persuasive, knowledgeable, even-tempered, and financially honest who is aiming in the wrong direction.

---

Quote:

---

But since you didn't cite ANY facts to back this up, it's difficult to discuss.

---

Quote:

---

None of these were fully resolved in the ABA's investigation.

---

Quote:

---

solid credentials and experience

---

Quote:

---

The “unitary executive” applies as well to the President’s authority to interpret laws as he sees fit, especially in areas of national security where right-wing lawyers argue that the commander-in-chief powers are “plenary,” which means “absolute, unqualified.”

So, when Alito assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that no one, not even the President, is “above the law,” that palliative answer had little meaning since under the “unitary” theory favored by Alito the President effectively is the law.

Since his days as a lawyer in Ronald Reagan’s White House, Alito has pushed this theory. At a Federalist Society symposium in 2001, Alito recalled that when he was in the Office of Legal Counsel in Ronald Reagan’s White House, “we were strong proponents of the theory of the unitary executive, that all federal executive power is vested by the Constitution in the President.”

In 1986, Alito advocated the use of “interpretive signing statements” by presidents to counter the judiciary’s traditional reliance on congressional intent in assessing the meaning of federal law.

Under Bush, “signing statements” have become commonplace and amount to his rejection of legal restrictions especially as they bear on presidential powers. A search of the White House Internet site finds 101 entries for the word “unitary” in Bush’s statements and other official references.

In December 2005, for instance, Bush cited the “unitary” powers of the Presidency when he signed the McCain amendment, which prohibited cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. In a “signing statement,” Bush reserved the right to bypass the law by invoking his commander-in-chief powers.

“The Executive Branch shall construe {the torture ban} in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power,” the signing statement read.Alito has argued that a powerful executive is what the Founding Fathers always intended.

....In a speech in 2000, he {Alito} said that when the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787, the framers “saw the unitary executive as necessary to balance the huge power of the legislature and the factions that may gain control of it.”

Scholars, however, have disputed Alito’s historical argument by noting that the framers worried most about excessive executive powers, like those of a king, and devised a complex system of checks and balances with the Legislature in the preeminent position to limit the President’s powers.

---