Posted on 01/14/2006 9:43:33 AM PST by billorites
Their motivation is the same as that of other liberals: narcissm. What power does a judge have if all he ever does is what the law says? There's no challenge in that!Fundamentally the "liberal" identifies with the thinker and not the doer; their perspective is the negation of Theodore Roosevelt's classic:
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."Journalists are the top of the food chain of liberalism; liberal politicians talk exactly the talk that suits journalists for the simple reason that they thereby put journalism's propaganda wind at their back. And liberal judges do it simply for the kick, and for the positive press they get from it in contradistinction to the horrible press that Justice Thomas has endured for one and a half decades now."Citizenship in a Republic,"
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
Earl Warren was the biggest enemy of the constitution ever born in this country. I still remember smiling Ike talking flippantly saying, "When I make a mistake, it's a big one." Eisenhower put Warren and Brennan on the court, two human plagues. Legions of murderers have been released because of these two scum, and you notice, the libbers don't make movies about them. They want it kept quiet that we have become an oligarchy.
The article never makes clear if the case then went to the SCT or if the SCT upheld the ruling that the search violated the 4th Amendment.
I'd like to know if the ruling was appealed by the town and if not, why not? They seemed to have a lot at stake here.
Exactly right. Brennan was the shadow figure behind the throne, who thought up most of these abominations. Blackmun never could have thought up Roe v. Wade without Brennan whispering in his ear.
I would add to your statement by saying that they didn't want us to know that the 10 YO girl was searched in her underwear by a female detective. Not strip-searched. They like to try to cloud the issue with words of their choosing, that make you think one thing when the facts are something else entirely. A common trick of the MSM as well.
Good catch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.