The decision by the Supreme Court was unanimous — so much for those “principled, conservative” judges of a more Republican persuasion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the pat-down is allowed if the police "harbor reasonable suspicion that a person subjected to the frisk is armed, and therefore dangerous to the safety of the police and public." Personally, I would need a reasonable definition of “reasonable suspicion,” from the good justices, because it seems awfully subjective.

The Supreme Court is in effect affirming the violation of someone’s rights, it seems, because the man in question happened to be an ex-con with a gun and marijuana, having just been released from the prison system. These facts do not mean he is precluded from having any rights.

This ruling is nothing more than an incentive for every police officer and government agent to violate and abuse what once were constitutionally-protected requirements. What happened to probable cause, and the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures?

Our Founding Fathers saw fit to enshrine some very noble principles in the form of deliberately well-defined rights which they believed, if well-guarded, would protect the people from those who who would govern too harshly or tyrannically, in a simple parchment document. But our present high court no longer bothers quibbling with such antiquated philosophies — guilty and possessing no rights until one can get oneself a good lawyer seems increasinlgy to be the new order of the day.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

jarnco5 said:

	... Voice Of Conservative America just visited your blog
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 06, 2009
Votes: +2