Monday, June 08, 2009

So, Sotomayor Has Street Cred

That must scare the living shit out of Scalia and you can damn be sure Thomas is looking up Michael Steele for some pointers on being hip.

Just one of my observations after reading this piece by James Oliphant in the LA Times.

I personally would love to see someone who has not been willfully trapped in an Ivory Tower get a seat on the Supreme court.

However, there are a few passages in this article that give me a serious case of the willies, such as,

"In two major rulings after she joined the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in 1998, she held that evidence could be used to convict a defendant even though police had violated his rights in seizing it. Sotomayor said that because the police and prosecutors acted "in good faith," the evidence need not be thrown out.

In 1999, Sotomayor upheld the crack cocaine conviction of a New York man despite what she called a "mistaken arrest." Last year, Sotomayor spoke for a 2-1 majority that upheld a man's child pornography conviction, even though she agreed an FBI agent did not have probable cause to search his computer.".

I have a serious problem with those two issues immediately.
One, she set a precedent, two, has she never heard of the Fourth Amendment?

I can appreciate what the lady has been through and her experience but I most certainly do not want someone who is predisposed to taking my constitutional rights and "Fudging" them to fit her own agenda.
There used to be strict procedures involved with searches and whether or not evidence collected illegally was even admissible in court.

Bending the law to get a conviction used to be taboo,as it should be.
Just another example of the erosion of our constitutionally guaranteed rights we don't have anymore.

If it weren't for that I would have her back just so I could see that bastard Scalia have a coronary.

Va Funculo, Tony.

Cross posted at The Oxdown Gazette, unless they take it down.


  1. I heartily agree with yer closing line, hoss.

    The rest, well . . . . bad guys who do bad things?

    I'm not sure how much protection I want them to have, other than the one's I have . . . /snark.

    Often, I think 'local' people should deal with teh bads mens . . . not that I'd advocate violence.

    But there's plenty that local folks can do, in unity, to suppress the threats of the 'bad guys', and their bad ways on the street corners.

    Just sayin. It takes a whole block to rescue a whole block. And that's ALL it takes, if people had balls.

    We beat The Taliban, and the Fundies, like that, too.

    Same game, same system, same protocols.

    We beat them all, if we WANT to.


  2. Amen to that, my friend!

  3. I agree. When judges start letting things slide because it's "just a technicality" or "just a formality," then my red flags start going up.

    There are reasons why we have laws spelling out protections against illegal search and seizure. Mirandizing is not a damn technicality. Probable cause is not just a suggestion.

    If we have judges - Supremes or otherwise - who start compromising those protections, then it'll just snowball.

    And Big Brother will be running rampant right in the middle of it.