Has a liberal Supreme Court Justice ever turned conservative?

[AmPat]

That is a circular argument. You are saying that bar is arrest and after arrest, nothing is unreasonable. If that were the case, nothing is unreasonable, period. All that is required is arrest.



I think that argument was lost with Atwater v City of Lago Vista. Arrest is very, very easy.

On a side note, that decision was during that time after Bush v Gore where the Court mixed things up a bit to get rid of the partisan taint. Souter actually wrote that one.



I am not really arguing whether the arrest was warranted (so to speak). I believe you are correct and the officers were in the right. This is more of an ideological enigma for me. I am looking at what I consider a conservative position, limits on the action of the State, and seeing the so-called conservative wing of the Court refusing to place any reasonable limit on the State when it comes to police powers.

I rarely agree with you, but this is one time where I believe you to be correct. Karma to you.

[Arroyo_Doble]

"It may well be stupid, but if it's stupid, pass a law!" he said. "Don't think the originalist interpretation constrains you. To the contrary. My Constitution is a very flexible Constitution. You want a right to abortion? Create it the way all rights are created in a democracy, pass a law. The death penalty? Pass a law. That's flexibility."

That is interesting considering they are now deliberating on striking down a law that was passed.

I wonder if he will remain consistent in this or find "flexibility" in his ideology.

[Adam Wood]

That is a circular argument. You are saying that bar is arrest and after arrest, nothing is unreasonable. If that were the case, nothing is unreasonable, period. All that is required is arrest.

I have to admit that you have a point there.

[Janice]

That is interesting considering they are now deliberating on striking down a law that was passed.

I wonder if he will remain consistent in this or find "flexibility" in his ideology.

The law that needs to be changed is the commerce clause. Then they can attempt this. First one then the other. Not the other way around.

[Zeus]

That is interesting considering they are now deliberating on striking down a law that was passed.

I wonder if he will remain consistent in this or find "flexibility" in his ideology.

They are deliberating on the constitutionality of the law not the stupidity of the law.

[Arroyo_Doble]

"[F]lexibility" appears to be in vogue.

[Janice]

Separate but co-equal.. unless of course, you disagree with me

They are deliberating on the constitutionality of the law not the stupidity of the law.

This is why we used to have 3 co-equal branches of govt. First he over-rides the people. Then he over-rides congress. Now this.

[Odysseus]

That is a circular argument. You are saying that bar is arrest and after arrest, nothing is unreasonable. If that were the case, nothing is unreasonable, period. All that is required is arrest.

Once somebody is in custody, they are in custody, and the state has an obligation to ensure that they are not carrying any contraband into the facility. Otherwise, anybody could seek arrest for a minor charge and smuggle weapons or drugs to other prisoners. Now, one can argue that if the original arrest was improper, then the search while in custody is invalidated and anything found cannot be used for subsequent prosecution, but if the original arrest is valid, then the search is valid. [/QUOTE]

That is interesting considering they are now deliberating on striking down a law that was passed.

I wonder if he will remain consistent in this or find "flexibility" in his ideology.

There is nothing inconsistent in his view of the Constitution and the striking down of a law that is unconstitutional. The courts have had the power to strike down unconstitutional laws since Marbury vs. Madison. Scalia's objection is to the practice of judges creating law by pretending that their desires are enshrined in the Constitution, even if what they are imposing runs counter to the text and original intent.

[NJCardFan]

Once somebody is in custody, they are in custody, and the state has an obligation to ensure that they are not carrying any contraband into the facility. Otherwise, anybody could seek arrest for a minor charge and smuggle weapons or drugs to other prisoners. Now, one can argue that if the original arrest was improper, then the search while in custody is invalidated and anything found cannot be used for subsequent prosecution, but if the original arrest is valid, then the search is valid.

[/QUOTE]
Yo yo has obviously never worked in a prison. We have this issue all the time and have full authority to search any inmate at any time. Oddly enough, the only thing we have to get special permission to do is do urine tests which either have to have probable cause or have to be what they call randoms. Visits present a whole other problem.