Well Republicans should play this up just as Dems used to, like : ‘Obama, Dems and liberals are showing contempt for the LAW and inciting civil war.’
Remember how they called us crazy, dangerous, out of control. all for protesting peacefully and legally? Time for payback.
I always say return fire with fire.
Roberts replaced Rehnquist, so I don't think that tilted the court. Alito replaced O'Connor (a "moderate" -- many times voted with Rehnquist, but some liberal votes, especially later in her term, so that was a move to the right). I think the big shift was Thomas replacing Marshall. I guess that is kind of remarkable for a GHWB appointment.
I agree there are double standards. Beyond that, Newt should realize that if a GOP House or Senate sent out US Marshalls to arrest judges they don't like, Dems could do the same when they are in power. Remember how they called us crazy, dangerous, out of control. all for protesting peacefully and legally? Time for payback. I always say return fire with fire.
They should try, although libs and the media are notorious for ignoring ideological inconsistencies. Can the GOP and the right wing orgs convince the voters?
Obama could learn something from Truman, who, after losing the huge SCOTUS case when he tried to control the steel mills, and was asked whether he would abide by the SCOTUS ruling, said "Yes. I am not a tyrant."
I was just listening to John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute on local radio. The idea that we have any ‘conservative’ judges is a sick joke. Those ‘conservative’ judges just ruled that anyone, without probable cause, without warrant can be body searched, can have their homes entered.
They are ELITISTS. They know they live like kings and are protected as such and will never have to be subjected to the laws they lay down for the rest of us.
We have NO ONE on our side, sickoflibs.
John Whitehead’s
Weekly Commentary:
Strip-Searching America: Florence v. County of Burlington
Strip-Searching America: Florence v. County of Burlington [SHORT]
Everybody’s a Target in the American Surveillance State
Strip-Searching America: Florence v. County of Burlington [SHORT]
April 03, 2012
By John W. Whitehead
In a devastating 5-4 ruling that not only condones an overreach of state power but legitimizes what is essentially state-sponsored humiliation and visual rape, the U.S. Supreme Court recently declared that any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a strip search by police or jail officials without reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is carrying a weapon or contraband. The five-man majority rationalized their ruling as being necessary for safety, security and efficiency, the government’s overused and all-too-convenient justifications for its steady erosion of our freedoms since 9/11.
This ruling stems from the case of Albert Florence who was erroneously arrested for failing to pay a traffic fine and forced to submit to two egregious strip and visual body-cavity searches at two different county jails. Florence, an African-American man in his mid-thirties, was on his way to Sunday dinner in 2005 with his then-pregnant wife and 4-year-old son when they were stopped by a New Jersey State Police trooper. Florence’s wife was driving. However, after showing his ID, Florence found himself handcuffed, arrested and taken to jail. After spending six days in jail, Florence was finally able to prove his innocence.
Outraged, Florence sued the jail officials who had needlessly degraded his bodily integrity. A federal appeals court sanctioned the blanket strip search policy, which was then affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In a nutshell, what Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, concluded was that it is impractical—“unworkable” was the phrase used—to expect overworked jail officials to have to take the time to distinguish between harmless individuals guilty of nothing more than driving without a seatbelt and those who pose a true threat and may be reasonably suspected of carrying drugs or weapons.
Of course, the Constitution insists that a workable solution must be found—one that squares with the Bill of Rights. But in an age when the courts show greater deference to bureaucracy than democracy, making life easier for harried jailers trumps the Constitution. Consequently, any person who is arrested, no matter how minor the alleged criminal act, can now be subjected to a degrading strip search. Examples of minor violations which could now lead to a strip search are many and include “violating a leash law, driving without a license and failing to pay child support.”
These blanket strip searches are not for the faint of heart. A typical strip search, as described in a prison manual and cited by Justice Stephen Breyer in his dissent, involves:
a visual inspection of the inmate’s naked body. This should include the inmate opening his mouth and moving his tongue up and down and from side to side, removing any dentures, running his hands through his hair, allowing his ears to be visually examined, lifting his arms to expose his arm pits, lifting his feet to examine the sole, spreading and/or lifting his testicles to expose the area behind them and bending over and/or spreading the cheeks of his buttocks to expose his anus. For females, the procedures are similar except females must in addition, squat to expose the vagina.
One can certainly understand the need for such precautions when dealing with dangerous criminals. But is there really any reason to subject a mother arrested for driving with her children unbelted to such an invasive strip search? What about the nun arrested for trespassing during an antiwar demonstration? Or the activists arrested in a free speech protest or those who engage in acts of nonviolent civil disobedience? In keeping with this ruling, any and all of these individuals could now find themselves subjected to exposing their naked bodies in a variety of poses designed to “show all” to the prying eyes of government officials.
Frankly, I doubt that Anthony M. Kennedy, John G. Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.—the five justices who seemed to have no trouble inflicting such humiliations on the populace—would be inclined to condone such dehumanizing treatment were there even the slightest possibility that they might be subjected to it.
This ruling reinforces the idea that we are all to be treated as suspects. A forcible strip search upon arrest inverts the presumption of innocence into the presumption of guilt. Before even being allowed to call a lawyer, the arrestee is faced with the dehumanizing treatment of a strip search, a security measure traditionally reserved for those suspected of a serious crime or already proven guilty.
Despite having essentially gifted jailers with carte blanche authority to strip search individuals at will, the Court may find it has opened a proverbial can of worms. Although most Americans are very compliant, many will not readily submit to these strip searches—especially not if they are innocent of any serious criminal wrongdoing.
In light of the fact that approximately 13 million people are introduced to American jails in any given year, we may soon see millions of people needlessly strip-searched over minor offenses such as unpaid traffic fines. What remains to be seen is whether this license to strip-search will become the next weapon of compliance to be used against those who question the power of the state. For the moment, however, thanks to the Supreme Court, visually invasive strip searches will at least be the hallmark of jailhouses across the United States.
Good post.....dose of their own medicine.
Thanks sickoflibs.