Libertarians, moderates, liberals and ... by SignyM

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Libertarians, moderates, liberals and ...

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Thursday, February 9, 2006 05:20
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3889
PAGE 2 of 2

Saturday, January 28, 2006 4:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

Geezer: Nevertheless, it was signed by a judge and the officers who served it had no reason to believe it was not valid.

So basically the girl's civil rights were violated, but not by the police officers but by the Judge who signed the warrant, even though he should have known better. In a problem-solving mode (which is what "creative settlements" are all about) I would have identified the Judge as the party at fault and made him (and all judges at his level in the state) take refresher classes on Fourth Ammendment protections, and what is- and what isn't- a Constitutional warrant. Failing that, I would have found that the girl's Constitutional rights were violated even if the wrong defendent was identified, thus re-affirmining the Fourth Ammendment which requires specificity in search warrants. I would NOT have simply swept this aside, as Alito did.

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 4:54 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
BAD CHOICE is simply subjective, and not beholden to any quantified fact. You don't like Bush, so you don't like Alito. Merely your personal opinion. ( typing it in caps doesn't make it any more real )

You ignored the relevent comments I made, and responded w/ inane insults. Einstein , to my knowledge, wasn't much into magic, so I am unaware of what he conjured.

I ignored your comments because they are not relevent. Opinions, like mine, except wrong. And everything you and I say is subjective, so I guess I'll just dismiss ALL(caps) that you ever say, too.
BTW, I was using 'conjured' in the Mal way, to mean conjured up in your head, he says it in the movie Serenity to the character of Simon early in. You should see it, it's a good movie. Talks about how governments have a hard time with the truth, and like control at the expense of the individual.

Just a little sarcastic Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 5:00 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

What I get from Auraptor's posts is that a bad choice is simply a subjective thing, unless of course it is HIS choice in which case it's objective. So I pass on Auraptor's recommedations because he can't even keep his logic consistent.

---------------------------------
Unitary Executive- A concept whose time should never come.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 9:52 AM

MICO

Rue and SignyM: Hope you don't mind if I jump in here to add a few comments. The search case you've been discussing is, to me, just another example of Alito's deference to the executive branch. His dissenting opinion essentially says that when a question arises, we should defer to the executive branch (law enforcement officers) rather than the judicial branch (the actual warrant signed by the magistrate). It is not unusual that a judge or magistrate will issue a warrant that is narrower in scope than what is requested by law enforcement. That is what happened here. We don't know for sure whether it was really the magistrate's intent to do so, but the end result was that the face of the warrant was narrower in scope than the application and affidavit supporting it. Alito says, in effect, that the magistrate must have made a mistake in sigining the warrant that he issued and that we should just go with what the law enforcement officers wanted in the first place. As the majority points out, Alito's position makes the judge or magistrate unnecessary. I don't see how that can make Alito anything other than a judicial activist (albeit a crazy one, since his position makes himself unnecessary); the Constitutional language clearly contemplates review, by the judicial branch, of executive branch search and seizure requests as part of the checks and balances built into it. Alito is clearly reading into the Constitution something quite different than what was put there by the framers. Sounds like "judicial activism" to me.

But here is what really worries me about Alito: When you combine his willingness to sell out the judicial and legislative branches with his proven, serious ethical lapses, I just can't believe anything the man says. He previously promised to recuse himself from certain cases, then later refused to do so, even though he was ethically required to. I think judges have to be held to a higher ethical standard than we might hold for us regular folk. This is important because the only reason we have a relatively peaceful society is that there is a widespread belief in the essential fairness of the rule of law. And, although there are certainly instances of corrupt judges, the perception in general is that when you finally get your day in court, you'll get a fair hearing, and will abide by the court's decision, even if you don't like it. I hold the Supreme Court to the highest ethical standard, and Alito just doesn't even come close to that in my estimation.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
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).

SignyM sorta glosses over these ethical lapses, but for me, they are the core of the matter. I don't like Alito's politics, but more than that, I think he's dishonest, and that's something we just can't abide in a justice on our highest court.

Sometimes you have to thrust with the point . . .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 10:27 AM

DREAMTROVE

Okay, there are issues with Alito. I'm still not convinced that his new post would grant him a position to effectuate that. I think that unitary executive is liable a matter for congress to consider, not one justice. I'll admit, this does concern me, but I'm not convinced Alito is a disaster. Harriet Myers is a disaster. So are many other people that Bush would like to nominate. It's comparative, and it's Bush, so I'm grading on a curve. This is the price we pay for having elected him. We should bear that in mind before electing more crony heads regardless of which party they are in.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 10:54 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
This is quite an assumption. Mom didn't know that her hubby (boyfriend, whatever) was dealing drugs out of their home? Didn't know where they were stashed when he wasn't there? Sort of a credulity stretch.

Guilty until proven innocent then?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 2:48 PM

DREAMTROVE

A slight adviso on Alito.

The Filibuster has the support of Hillary, DiFi and Kerry. I think that this means, to me, a TE operation. Since killing the filibuster is on the TE agenda, I think that this is meant to force the nuclear option. I think Team Evil Democrat (TED) is intending to win a majority in '06, and a presidency in '08, and then will be legislatively unopposed.

Just a warning. IMHO

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 3:37 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Guilty until proven innocent then?

Of course not. Neither is the alleged drug dealer. Suspect until checked out would be a more accurate description of the mom and daughter.

The only person I see here who is being treated as guilty until proven innocent is Judge Alito.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:27 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer- Do you need the text of the Fourth Amendment reposted? Apparently you do. The police aren't supposed to be able to "check out" whomever they please because they "suspect". But since you're only pretending to be legitimate, I'll stop the pretend discussion with you.

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:32 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- Do you need the text of the Fourth Amendment reposted? Apparently you do. The police aren't supposed to be able to "check out" whomever they please because they "suspect".

As noted before, the police in this case thought they had a valid warrant to search anyone on the premises. Judge Alito apparently thought that although they were incorrect in this assumption, that error did not constitute an actionable offense.

And the police can "check out" whichever "suspect" they please, as long as they can convince a judge to sign a warrant. The issue in this case was an error in the warrant, not the police willfully overstepping their bounds.

Quote:
But since you're only pretending to be legitimate, I'll stop the pretend discussion with you.

Not pretending legitimacy at all. My parents were married to each other well before I was born.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 29, 2006 12:08 PM

LIGHTMEDARK

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It shouldn't matter whether you're a so-called Republican, Dem, Independent, or Libertarian... this nominatio should be something that EVERYONE is against.

is it bad that I don't even know what republican, democrat, independent, or libertarian even mean? the idea of republican vs. democrat has always bothered me.

---
http://www.xffx.net/blog <-inching towards daylight

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 30, 2006 3:37 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer- I'm going to dip into this discussion with you just long enough to point out the problem I have w/ your answer. It is what I would have answered before except I didn't have enough time.

What you COULD have said was: "The girl's rights were violated but not by the police". Or you could have said "Suspect until checked out under a warrant" or "The case should have been referred back to a lower court for correction" or you could have even quoted Alito, who said

Quote:
"The magistrate must have understood that the officers, who had drafted the warrant, believed that the warrant, if signed, would give them authorization to carry out a search of the scope specified in the application, viz., a search of 'all occupants.' As a result, the magistrate surely would not have signed the warrant without modification if the magistrate had not wished to confer that authority."

lefarkins.blogspot.com/2005/11/more-on-strip-search-sammy.html (which in itself is an exceptionally troubling argument but at least gives to nod to court involvement). Instead, what you said was

"Suspect until checked out".

That- in any reading- is global advocacy for an unrestrained police state and from my reading of most of your other posts I think it reflects a real heartfelt pro-military, pro-police, pro-"internal security" reaction. You will occasionally move off that point long enough to caveat your statements with "Well I don't like what Bush is doing to gays" but the vast bulk of your posts defend this Adminstration. So I'm curious- were you that defensive of Clinton? Are you for a strong central government under ANY circumstances? Or are you pro-Bush, or pro-Republican?

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 30, 2006 3:42 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
is it bad that I don't even know what republican, democrat, independent, or libertarian even mean? the idea of republican vs. democrat has always bothered me.

No it's not bad, it just means you're a thinking person! I know there are people who are registered as Democratic Party who violently disagree with other Dems. I don't think you can classify people's political leanings on just a Dem-GOP axis. Even that two-axis classification that has been posed here a couple of times doesn't fit a lot of people. I was just aiming this post at everyone who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool fascist.

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 30, 2006 9:33 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"Suspect until checked out".

That- in any reading- is global advocacy for an unrestrained police state and from my reading of most of your other posts I think it reflects a real heartfelt pro-military, pro-police, pro-"internal security" reaction.

Actually, it means that a mother and daughter who live with a suspected drug dealer can reasonably be expected to either have knowledge of, or be aiding in, his dealing. If the police and judge had had better communication and had not made procedural errors in the warrant, there would have been no case at all, since the request for a search of "all persons" seems justified.

If the police had searched the mother and daughter knowing that they did not have a valid warrant, I'd have a major problem with that. No one alleges that this is what happened. I also expect that if two males had been searched based on the defective warrant instead of a mother and daughter ("Oh my God! They strip-searched a child!"), none of this would have come up at all. Gender bias works both ways.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 30, 2006 9:53 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I also expect that if two males had been searched based on the defective warrant instead of a mother and daughter ("Oh my God! They strip-searched a child!"), none of this would have come up at all. Gender bias works both ways.
"Keep the Shiny side up"

On the other hand had the police come to the Magistrate and asked straight out to strip search a child there is a good chance their request would have been refused. So the ambiguity of the warrant that made it unconstitutional was also responsable for it being issued in the first place.

The question before the court is simple, is this warrant constitutionally acceptable? If it is then it would apply had it been a woman and her daughter or two men off the street, the purpose of the law is to be equitable, that's why justice is supposed to be blind.

Had there been two dodgy characters in the place rather than the mother and daughter searching them would still have been a breach of their constitutional rights, the fact that it was a Mother and child just makes that breach seem more horrible and probably effect the damages awarded.

If you are a conservative don't you believe in personal responsability? You seem to be saying "not the police's fault, they didn't know the warrant was illegal," well it sure is someones fault and ulimately someone has to pay. Now if that comes from the city cops of the state legal apparatus is just a matter of which bank account the check draws on. The government was at fault, time to pay.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 3:59 PM

JHANCE11

obviously we are following this thread and we are shooting off our mouth but that's beside the point. Do'nt you think evil might be A bit much dear.

Was he so evil he volunteered for vietnam while GWB ran off to the NG air in Texas.(an open secret on getting out of being shot at) Was he eveil when awarded 3 medals for meritorious service. Again beside the real point.

Have you considered why they call it the "nuclear option" it leaves no servivors. Understand the precidant it will set for the future.I know all the up and coming republicans out there think they will alway's be in power. Take it from someone who has seen it both ways. Watching politic's since the 1960's. It's A cyclical thing and whend the Democrate's come back around for their turn the republican's will wish that filibuster were still intact. There is an old adage. When the God's wish to punish us they give us what we most desire.

jhance11

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 4:39 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Geezer,
You really need to read Fletch2's response. But here are other facts:

Quote:
And the police can "check out" whichever "suspect" they please, as long as they can convince a judge to sign a warrant.

For a warrant to be signed you need probable cause. The affidavit had no 'probable cause' for searching the mother or child.

Specifically

Quote:
... since the request for a search of "all persons" seems justified

If you read the affidavit (which you apparently have not) it specifically states that NON-RESIDENT ADULTS of the house may be assumed to be engaged in drug deals and may be searched. Even IF you assume the judge fudged-up and meant to sign a broader warrant than he actually did sign, there is no room in the affidavit to search the mother, and especially not the child.

The issue is, why did Alito stretch allowable circumstances for the police?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 7:07 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh, I'm sure Geezer will think of SOME reason why a resident child, as opposed to a non-resident adult, was searched. Likely he will say that it's just "semantics" ort some such. We can always count on Geezer to stretch and stretch and stretch executive power!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 2, 2006 7:16 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The issue is, why did Alito stretch allowable circumstances for the police?

Let's let Judge Alito answer.

"I would reverse the order of the District Court and direct that summary judgment be entered in favor of the defendants. First, the best reading of the warrant is that it authorized the search of any persons found on the premises. Second, even if the warrant did not contain such authorization, a reasonable police officer could certainly have read the warrant as doing so, and therefore the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity...I share the majority's visceral dislike of the intrusive search of John Doe's young daughter, but it is a sad fact that drug dealers sometimes use children to carry out their business and to avoid prosecution. I know of no legal principle that bars an officer from searching a child (in a proper manner) if a warrant has been issued and the warrant is not illegal on its face. Because the warrant in this case authorized the searches that are challenged - and because a reasonable officer, in any event, certainly could have thought that the warrant conferred such authority - I would reverse."

You can find his entire dissent here:

http://www.asksam.com/cgi-bin/as_web6.exe?Command=DocName&File=Alito_O
pinions&Name=Doe%20v.%20Groody

about 2/3 down the document.

As to:

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If you read the affidavit (which you apparently have not) it specifically states that NON-RESIDENT ADULTS of the house may be assumed to be engaged in drug deals and may be searched. Even IF you assume the judge fudged-up and meant to sign a broader warrant than he actually did sign, there is no room in the affidavit to search the mother, and especially not the child.

I read the ruling, which states about 1/4 from the top:

"The typed affidavit requested permission to search John Doe's residence and his Volkswagen for drugs, paraphernalia, money, drug records and other evidence. Additionally, the affidavit stated:
*236 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 many attempt to conceal controlled substances on their persons.

This 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 **4 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 acutally reside or own/rent the premises. This is done to prevent the discovery of said items in hopes that said persons will not be subject to search when police arrive."

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 2, 2006 4:52 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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 many attempt to conceal controlled substances on their persons.

This 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 acutally reside or own/rent the premises...

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 2, 2006 6:37 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
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 many attempt to conceal controlled substances on their persons.

This 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 acutally reside or own/rent the premises...

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

The affidavit requests a warrant to search "All the occupants of the residence" at least twice. The issue here is basically that whoever typed up the warrant didn't reference the affidavit in the "who is to be searched" box on the warrant, like they did elsewhere. It was a clerical error.

Sort of a moot point anyway, since Judge Alito has been confirmed. I'm not too comfortable on how he might rule on abortion or gay rights, but in the Doe v. Groody case, I can't help but agreee with him. The police acted in good faith based on what they thought the warrant specified.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 4, 2006 7:18 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Ahhh Geezer,

ever the Nazi. The rationale - explained at length, in full sentences, three seperate times in the affidavit - was to be able to search VISITORS who might conceal drugs.

Have you ever considered that it wasn't a typo? That the judge meant to limit the search?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 9, 2006 5:20 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ahhh Geezer,

ever the Nazi.

Let's see, where was that quote? Ahh.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This is the other lesson that (s)he learned: when the facts don't go your way, just engage in ad hominem attacks.

Now back to polite discourse.

Quote:
The rationale - explained at length, in full sentences, three seperate times in the affidavit - was to be able to search VISITORS who might conceal drugs.

Interesting rationale, but a request to search "all occupants" was also included several times. No rationale needed to figure out that "all occupants" means "all occupants".

Quote:
Have you ever considered that it wasn't a typo? That the judge meant to limit the search?

No. There's no indication either way in the decision of what the judge who issued the warrant thought, and no indication he was ever asked about it. Wonder why, since whether he intended to limit the search or intended to incorporate the affidavit in the warrant is pretty much what the decision and dissent turn on? Maybe a little coverup of judicial error? Hang the cops out to dry and let the taxpayers foot the bill rather than point out a fellow judge's goof?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE