Sometimes it is a pain in the neck to be allied with conservatives. Just like liberals, conservatives sometimes are guilty of imposing their preferences on society, regardless of clear and unambiguous language in the Constitution.
The most recent example is a case originating in Kentucky. Every Supreme Court Justice, with the exception of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, voted to ignore the 4th Amendment and allow unlawful entry into the dwelling of a private citizen. Michael Walsh of National Review explains in the New York Post.
A series of recent court rulings, including one this week from the US Supreme Court, appear to erode one of our bedrock defenses against the arbitrary, abusive power of the state. At risk: the Fourth Amendment guarantee to all American citizens of the right to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” On Monday, in Kentucky v. King, the high court upheld the conviction of a man arrested after cops — who were tailing a suspected drug dealer into an apartment building — smelled marijuana smoke and banged on his door. When they heard noises coming from the apartment “consistent with the destruction of evidence,” they broke in and found drugs. But they had the wrong guy. The drug courier was in another apartment. Hollis King may have been breaking the law, but he was minding his own business, on his own premises, and only became a suspect after the police had made their mistake. But Justice Sam Alito, writing for the 8-1 majority, said, in effect, So what? …What planet is Alito living on? The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to restrict authority. The Founders, who suffered under the British system of “general warrants” and “writs of assistance” — i.e., fishing expeditions — wished to ensure that no American home could be searched without probable cause and a duly issued warrant specifying exactly what police are looking for. The case has been remanded to Kentucky, to sort out whether the circumstances were truly “exigent.” But Alito’s interpretation is an open invitation to abuse — as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emphatically warned in her dissent: “The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down — never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant. I dissent from the court’s reduction of the Fourth Amendment’s force.”
The final point I’ll make is that this is yet another sign that the War on Drugs is a disaster. It results in bigger government and less freedom. You can be completely anti-drug (like me), but still realize that it’s not the job of government to dictate the decisions of other people.
Or, if you want to control other people, do it within the confines of the Constitution. Is that too much to ask?
[…] that make it hard for the government to mistreat us or put us in jail (my views even led me to side with Ruth Bader Ginsburg over Clarence Thomas on one […]
[…] that make it hard for the government to mistreat us or put us in jail (my views even led me to side with Ruth Bader Ginsburg over Clarence Thomas on one […]
[…] my views on a wide range of issues, such as the War on Drugs, asset forfeiture, money laundering, search and seizure, and the death […]
[…] best (but not quite perfect) Supreme Court Justice is justly outraged by these examples of legalized theft. First, some […]
[…] comply with the 4th Amendment. So now, perhaps, you’ll understand why I’m willing (albeit only on one occasion) to side with Ruth Bader Ginsburg over Clarence […]
[…] comply with the 4th Amendment. So now, perhaps, you’ll understand why I’m willing (albeit only on one occasion) to side with Ruth Bader Ginsburg over Clarence […]
[…] with the 4th Amendment. So now, perhaps, you’ll understand why I’m willing (albeit only on one occasion) to side with Ruth Bader Ginsburg over Clarence […]
[…] War on Drugs is so misguided that it even resulted in the nearly unimaginable result of Clarence Thomas being on the wrong side of a Supreme Court decision and Ruth Bader Ginsburg […]
[…] Our 4th Amendment right to block the government from spying on us without a search warrant is – or at least should be – inviolate, even though it has been unfortunately narrowed. […]
[…] Let’s close by being thankful for the Founding Fathers. They bequeathed to us a Bill of Rights that includes a 2nd Amendment and a 4th Amendment. I know my conservative friends appreciate the former, but I hope this story helps them realize that the latter is also important as a bulwark against government thuggery. It’s for that reason that I once had the unusual experience of siding with Ruth Bader Ginsburg over Clarence Thomas! […]
[…] laundering laws. And it’s the Drug War that is usually the motive when politicians and courts erode our Fourth Amendment liberties and trample our individual […]
[…] a prosecutor has walked away from her Socratic grillings about typical old-lady things–like search and seizure and the legality of drug-sniffing dogs–dazed and befuddled by her adroitness in fields that […]
[…] such as NATO no longer serving America’s national security purpose, and the importance of preserving constitutional protections of civil liberties. But since I’m a fiscal policy economist, I normally consort with […]
[…] what’s happened to the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Fifth Amendment in recent years, and considering what the President would like to do to the […]
[…] I Can’t Believe I’m Siding with Ruth Bader Ginsburg over Clarence Thomas! – International …: “Sometimes it is a pain in the neck to be allied with conservatives. Just like liberals, conservatives sometimes are guilty of imposing their preferences on society, regardless of clear and unambiguous language in the Constitution.” […]
[…] This case illustrates […]
These are the things that really matter. So sad.
[…] it’s pretty infrequently that I agree with anyone at CATO on domestic policy, but a post yesterday from Dan Mitchell, a CATO senior fellow on tax policy, struck my […]
This sounds just as I though, the Justices of the Supreme Courts are giving their own interpretation of the law, instead of interpreting what the Constitution. It’s alright to agree with someone no matter which side or how we think about them, right is right and wrong still remains what it is. Thanks for Sharing.
Buzzie Ginsberg is in many ways an “old time” liberal. Remember, the likes of Jimmy Hoffa and other labor leaders in the 30s and 40s wanted the government out of their affairs (echoing Frederick Douglas who said clearly that emancipated slaves didn’t need the government’s “help”). While it’s stunning as JohnJ points out, she disagreed with her fellow travelers, it just might be as simple a case as a broken clock right twice a day.
you should vote your conscience,if it is the same as Ruth Bader ginsbergs then that’s who you vote with, she is not always wrong, I can’t believe I said that, but it’s true.
I blogged when TSA started their electronic strip search of us airline passengers, in violation of this same 4th Amendment. Where were you then???
Don’t think of it as disagreeing with Thomas. Think of it as disagreeing with Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
Remember when you could say “My home is my castle” with a straight face?