Alito....A good idea?

[Donkey1499]

You don't know me, and you certainly don't know how I form my opinion. For your information I don't watch tv: I have read those opinions and my facts are right. If you think they are wrong point me to the source of your information. :roll:

The 10 year old girl was strip-searched, and here's why. She lived with some drug dealers (by force I assume) and these drug dealers were using her as a 'mule' to transport the drugs. So she had to be searched for #1: her own health, and #2: she had incriminating evidence in an area of her body and the cops needed that evidence. I don't have all the details, but I assume she was forced to be a mule also.

The 15 year old who was shot. I can only assume that he made a gesture as if reaching for a weapon; so naturally, the cop defended himself.

 

[Donkey1499]

Actually a judge has something called descretion. They can choose to lower a sentence if they so choose. It is one of the beauties of the constitution, basically a judge cannot be told what to do and that keeps 'em independent.

You'll garuntee that eh? Have you read any of the stuff he has written...he finds law to make his personal opinion his ruling. Take the one on abortion that everyone looks at. He said, I wanna allow this...what is the most obscure way I can do so that is barely within the law. He did and his idea was shot down by Sandra Day O'Connor, the best justice to grace the court in a good while (bascially she was as nonpartisan as you could get anymore).

I can't garuntee that alito will be good or bad, but I am legit scared of him because of his personal views and the way he bends law to meet them. That is not what a judge is -- a judge is someone who creates consensous (at least on the Supreme Court) and who applies the law fairly to all sides. That is it.

Didn't O'Connor "LEGISLATE" that one law that says that the gov't can take your land away from ya? The law was not applied fairly in that case.

One reason why some people don't like Alito is because he is a conservative. Plain and simple. I've studied enough law and know (from the cases that I did take time to read) that Alito follows the law closely, the way it was writ.

I'm not saying that Conservative judges don't legislate from the bench, but liberal judges tend to do it more often. Especially in the case "Roe v. Wade. If that was to be passed (which it was, unfortunately), it should have gone through the House and Senate. Not thru the courts.

 

[Deegan]

The 10 year old girl was strip-searched, and here's why. She lived with some drug dealers (by force I assume) and these drug dealers were using her as a 'mule' to transport the drugs. So she had to be searched for #1: her own health, and #2: she had incriminating evidence in an area of her body and the cops needed that evidence. I don't have all the details, but I assume she was forced to be a mule also.

The 15 year old who was shot. I can only assume that he made a gesture as if reaching for a weapon; so naturally, the cop defended himself.

Kennedy himself admitted to all of us during the confirmation hearings that he thinks emotion should play in to the decision making, this does not a good judge make. While it may be o.k in his profession, it is not appropriate for a judge, and he tried to make Alito look evil, and unfeeling, that is not fair, nor is it logical!

 

[Donkey1499]

Kennedy himself admitted to all of us during the confirmation hearings that he thinks emotion should play in to the decision making, this does not a good judge make. While it may be o.k in his profession, it is not appropriate for a judge, and he tried to make Alito look evil, and unfeeling, that is not fair, nor is it logical!

I wasn't making Alito look evil. I was just explaining the cases. And I thought that the cases were handled fairly. It's the democrats who don't ever have all the facts, or at least undistorted facts.

 

[Deegan]

I wasn't making Alito look evil. I was just explaining the cases. And I thought that the cases were handled fairly. It's the democrats who don't ever have all the facts, or at least undistorted facts.

I was echoing your words, and supporting your stance. :lol:

 

[Donkey1499]

I was echoing your words, and supporting your stance. :lol:

An echo? You can hear me?!?!?!?!?!? Holy loud speaker, Batman!

 

[Navy Pride]

I just skimmed the Doe v. Groody dissent, and I don't see anyproblems with it. It is a well-reasoned dissent. I will look at it in more detail in the morning.

I have been battling food poisoning all day and don't have the time or energy right now at 11PM.

Man that is bad........I hope your feeling better soon.....

 

[ludahai]

Man that is bad........I hope your feeling better soon.....

Thanks. My wife also got it. We both feel MUCH better this morning. Fortunately, neither of the girls ate the offending food.

BTW, I am a PATS fan and an AFC guy. I will be rooting for the Steelers on Monday morning.

 

[Navy Pride]

Thanks. My wife also got it. We both feel MUCH better this morning. Fortunately, neither of the girls ate the offending food.

BTW, I am a PATS fan and an AFC guy. I will be rooting for the Steelers on Monday morning.

Glad to thear it.......That can be pretty rough.......

I was a big fan of the PATS after they knocked out the Steelers last year............I like Brady.He is a tough kid.......


The Seahawks are going down and going down hard.....

 

[vandree]

The 10 year old girl was strip-searched, and here's why. She lived with some drug dealers (by force I assume) and these drug dealers were using her as a 'mule' to transport the drugs. So she had to be searched for #1: her own health, and #2: she had incriminating evidence in an area of her body and the cops needed that evidence. I don't have all the details, but I assume she was forced to be a mule also.

The 15 year old who was shot. I can only assume that he made a gesture as if reaching for a weapon; so naturally, the cop defended himself.

Is this O'Reilly or Hannity spin on the story?
There was no mention nor evidence that the girl was used as a "mule";; since you obviously did not read the opinion which was in favor of the little girl, here is why the officers were wrong: "
OVERVIEW: As a result of a long--term investigation
of suspected narcotics dealing, officers sought a search
warrant for a certain person and his residence. The affidavit
requested search of all occupants of the residence.
However, the warrant only specified search of the named
person. The affidavit was not incorporated into the description
of the premises or persons to be searched. In executing the warrant, the officers strip searched the suspect's
wife and minor child for drugs. On appeal, the
court affirmed. The warrant did not specifically incorporate
the affidavit. Thus, the scope of the warrant could not
be broadened by the affidavit. The plain language of the
warrant did not authorize the search of the mother and
child. The affidavit was broader than the warrant, and the
police searched more broadly than the warrant. However,
only the warrant provided license to search. Further, there
was no independent basis to suspect the mother and child
of drug activity, which could have justified the search.
Additionally, by exceeding the scope of the warrant, the
search violated clearly established Fourth Amendment
rights. Thus, the officers were properly denied qualified
immunity."

 

[ludahai]

Is this O'Reilly or Hannity spin on the story?
There was no mention nor evidence that the girl was used as a "mule";; since you obviously did not read the opinion which was in favor of the little girl, here is why the officers were wrong: "
"

According to the Alito dissent, the search warrent said that "The search should also include all occupants of the residence..."

If she was indeed an occupant of the residence at the time the police arrived for the search, she too would be subject to being search.

 

[Donkey1499]

Is this O'Reilly or Hannity spin on the story?
There was no mention nor evidence that the girl was used as a "mule";; since you obviously did not read the opinion which was in favor of the little girl, here is why the officers were wrong: "
OVERVIEW: As a result of a long--term investigation
of suspected narcotics dealing, officers sought a search
warrant for a certain person and his residence. The affidavit
requested search of all occupants of the residence.
However, the warrant only specified search of the named
person. The affidavit was not incorporated into the description
of the premises or persons to be searched. In executing the warrant, the officers strip searched the suspect's
wife and minor child for drugs. On appeal, the
court affirmed. The warrant did not specifically incorporate
the affidavit. Thus, the scope of the warrant could not
be broadened by the affidavit. The plain language of the
warrant did not authorize the search of the mother and
child. The affidavit was broader than the warrant, and the
police searched more broadly than the warrant. However,
only the warrant provided license to search. Further, there
was no independent basis to suspect the mother and child
of drug activity, which could have justified the search.
Additionally, by exceeding the scope of the warrant, the
search violated clearly established Fourth Amendment
rights. Thus, the officers were properly denied qualified
immunity."

My donkey senses tell me that you don't like Fox News....

It's amazing how the loop holes in the law always favor the crooks, every time. I have a feeling that she was being used as a mule, being that drug dealers are the most foul human beings on the face of the planet, I even have more respect for terrorists than I do drug dealers (I support terrorists in any form; I was just making a point on how much I hate drug dealers). Hell, drug dealers stuff puppies with drugs and send em' across the border.

The girl was strip-searched by a female officer at least. Not to make light of the incident. But just consider the people she had to live with.

 

[vandree]

According to the Alito dissent, the search warrent said that "The search should also include all occupants of the residence..."

If she was indeed an occupant of the residence at the time the police arrived for the search, she too would be subject to being search.

You are confusing the signed affidavit requesting the warrant, with the warrant.

 

[ludahai]

You are confusing the signed affidavit requesting the warrant, with the warrant.

After reading both opinions, I believe that Judge Alito's opinion is better reasoned and more logically given the facts of the case and the fourth amendment of the constitution.