Unreasonable Search and Seizure Okayed in California

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath and affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."  So says the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Keep that in mind when reading this story from the San Francisco Chronicle.  The story arises at the confluence of modern technology and the Fourth Amendment.  It seems that every human being on the planet these days is carrying a cell phone.  Typically one that does much more than make and receive telephone calls.  Modern "smart" phones contain schedules, photos, video, financial documentation or access to such information, contact lists, call histories, text and data files, music, and much, much more.  So what happens to those cell phones when a police officer confiscates it upon request.  In California at least, the police can seize it and search its contents, without any limit.

That ability has passed constitutional muster at the California Supreme Court.  Dissenting Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar aptly declared that "the decision allows police 'to rummage at leisure through the wealth of personal and business information that can be carried on a mobile phone or handheld computer merely because the device was taken from an arrestee's person.'"

It is patently, unambiguously, and ridiculously unreasonable for police to search the entire contents of a person's cellular phone or computer without warrant upon an arrest for jaywalking - or anything else for that matter.

Look, I'm no ACLU liberal - and I doubt I've ever before been accused of that.  I don't believe that a drug dealer's Blackberry is sacrosanct.  However, I do believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  If the police arrest a bad guy, and he's got a cell phone which likely has specific incriminating evidence on it, no problem.  Get a warrant!  Then have at it.  Without probable cause and a warrant, however, the police need to keep their nose out of folks "effects".

Thankfully, the California decision is not binding nationwide.  In fact, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision just over a year ago that reached the opposite conclusion.  The issue is now quite likely to wind up at the U.S. Supreme Court.  Keep your fingers crossed that the men and women in black robes will do their job and defend the Constitution whenever that time comes.

"Let's remember, our rights and our privileges flow from our creator and not from our member of Congress."

-Tim Pawlenty, in Iowa this weekend.  (Link here.)

Maybe somebody should tell Elena Kagan.

A big victory for the Constitution and Americans

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment prohibits state and federal governments from banning possession of guns.  Though this right should seem obvious to all.  It was only upheld by a 5-4 vote.  But a win is a win.

Justice Kagan?

It appears that Elena Kagan will be the next justice of the United States Supreme Court.  She clerked for Thurgood Marshall, worked for Bill Clinton, and currently serves as Barack Obama's Solicitor General.  And, she's only 50 years old.

Chances that this could be a good thing for conservative principles?  Or the country?

Obama has no "litmus test" on abortion for Supreme Court nominations . . . yeah, right.

According to Barack Obama, he has no "litmus test" on the issue of abortion when it comes to choosing his nominee to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court.  (Link to story here.)

That would be great, if only it was true.  Obama's claim is simply another example of him saying what he thinks his audience wants to hear.  Instead of simply telling the truth - he won't nominate anyone who he believes would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade - Obama, instead, speaks in code saying that he will "choose a nominee who pays heed to women's rights [except, of course, unborn women] and privacy when interpreting the Constitution."  That code, of course, means the same thing.

Don't be fooled.  And don't think that Barack Obama has an open mind on abortion and the Supreme Court.

Why presidential elections matter . . .

Just in case you thought the election of Barack Obama didn't matter, John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court's oldest and probably its most liberal member is retiring at the end of this term.  (Link to story here.)

Here's hoping that Obama makes as big a "mistake" picking a replacement as Gerald Ford made when he appointed Stevens in 1975.

"This is our most desperate hour. Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi; you're my only hope."

The nation is at a desperate hour.  America as we know it is on the brink.  It is time to pull out all the stops.  It is time to throw the "Hail Mary" pass.  It is time to get the plans to the Death Star to the Rebel Alliance.  It is time to sue.  (Link to the present-day story of some hope here.)

The convoluted "logic" of "gun control" advocates

In this otherwise nondescript story about the U.S. Supreme Court hearing (not deciding - which would actually be news) a gun control case pertaining to the City of Chicago's ban on handguns in the home comes this "logical" nugget in two, back-to-back paragraphs . . .

"In 1982, Chicago imposed the strict gun ordinance to help combat rampant gang and firearm violence that plagued the city.

"In court papers, lawyers for the city of Chicago [arguing in favor of the ban] pointed out that 402 of the 412 firearm homicides occurred with the use of handguns in 2008."

Did everybody catch that?  Handguns were responsible for 402 of 412 homicides involving firearms in 2008 . . . that's 26 year after those handguns were banned.

How's that handgun ban workin' out for you Chicago?

Brilliant.  Let's keep passing laws that make the law-abiding disarm while those who couldn't care less about laws against harming other people, much less laws banning handguns, keep their weapons.  That makes for a fair fight, doesn't it?

"That's not true." -Samuel Alito

Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina) didn't call President Obama a liar tonight (like he did last year), but Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito did.  Alito didn't shout it out and his opinion is only known to us through the magic of lip-reading but he's right.  And, thankfully, it seems as though Americans are starting to realize that.

"Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity."

So says Anthony Kennedy for the 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark decision issued today striking down a major plank of the abominable 2002 campaign-finance law known as McCain-Feingold.  (Link to story here.)

I'm amazed that it took this long to strike down that monstrosity.  Though four liberals and questionable Kennedy explain a lot.

I'm also amazed that, with straight faces, can read the First Amendment (quoted here as a convenience for those who may never have - Stephen Breyer perhaps - "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech") and say that the Constitution allows Congress to make a law prohibiting television commercials advocating support of or opposition to a political candidate in an upcoming election.  Liberalism, again, explains a lot.

It is vital to your freedom and mine that the current balance of power on the Supreme Court remains until the next Republican president.  We should all be praying for the health of Chief Justice John Roberts,  and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.  And we should be praying that three years from yesterday, the remaining Justices all decide to take up golf and retire.

Norma McCorvey, a.k.a. Jane Roe arrested

Norma McCorvey, the repentant former abortion proponent (and the "Roe" in Roe v. Wade) was arrested today at the confirmation hearing for Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination.  McCorvey was tossed from the chamber when she "began screaming that Sotomayor was 'wrong' about abortion."  (Link to story here.)

I suppose truth was no defense.

Sotomayor knows best . . . at least she thinks she does

Today's Washington Post includes this story by Jerry Markon analyzing several of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's opinions from the Second Circuit.  The tone of the piece boils down to . . . she's a typical, left-of-center, Democrat.  That's not really news.  It would be sort-of like reporting that I like chocolate ice cream.  Would anyone expect otherwise from a woman nominated for promotion by Barack Obama?

What I do find interesting about this analysis of Sotomayor's opinions, though, is her willingness to repeatedly substitute her version of the facts of a case for the facts as determined by the court below . . . the folks actually charged with determining the facts.  She's willing to reexamine testimony and decide what weight to give it, though she didn't see the witness.  And she's willing to go look for additional evidence to support her position, even if that evidence was not presented in the case.

This willingness to "almost overstep her role," as the Post headline puts it, shows something about Sotomayor's judicial philosophy . . . . she's an activist!  Clearly and unapologetically so.  (I like vanilla ice cream too.)

Sonia Sotomayor is not right for the Supreme Court.  But, given Barack Obama's view of the Court and the world, I doubt that he would ever nominate someone who was.

King's dream is alive in Connecticut . . . no thanks to Sonia Sotomayor

The United States Supreme Court today reversed a decision made by an appellate court panel that included Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama's choice to join the high court.  (Link to story here.)

Sotomayor, with two other judges, had sided with the city of New Haven when it decided not to promote firefighters who scored the highest on promotion examinations because of their skin color.  In its decision, the Supreme Court held that the City could not rely "on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions."

Unfortunately, this decision was not unanimous.  Instead the four liberals on the Court sided with New Haven's discrimination on the basis of race - probably because the discrimination was directed against white men.  Thankfully, Sotomayor's presence on the Court would make no difference.  She would replace on of the four liberal dissenters.

As long as Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito can hold on, Martin Luther King's dream that people would "not be judged by the color of their skin" is alive.

(For a local angle, check out this excellent story by Jeremy Kohler in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  Kohler reminds us that when faced with the identical issues, St. Louis, eventually, did the right thing.)

Sonia Sotomayor ruled teenage blogger's First Amendment rights

The judge picked by Barack Obama to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court is one of the judges who determined that a Connecticut High School had the right to disqualify a student from running for school government because of what she had said about school officials on her own, personal, blog.  (Link to story here.)

Sonia Sotomayor stood against the First Amendment in the matter of Avery Doninger.

Sotomayor looks to be a constitutional nightmare but her ascendency to the Supreme Court wouldn't affect the balance of power anyway, since she's replacing another liberal and, frankly, I'm not sure the anybody else Barack Obama would ever appoint would be any better.

What is the role of the Judicial Branch? Do you stand with Sonia Sotomayor or Alexander Hamilton?

Sonia Sotomayor, typical of a liberal judge, is an activist.  She believes that she has a job "where policy is made."  That's not me putting words in her mouth, by the way, that's what she said at Duke University's Law School back in 2005.  Check her out at this link.

Sotomayor is "not promoting" judicial activism, of course, or "advocating it" because she knows that she's being recorded.  But "ya' know" it is clearly what she thinks.

What did the founding fathers of our country think was the role of the judiciary?  Making policy?  Certainly not.  Maybe she didn't read Federalist No. 78 at Princeton or Yale.  In it, Alexander Hamilton wrote that "the interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts."  Interpretation!  Not creation from whole cloth.  The courts are not the place to make policy.  

"The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority."  They were not designed to expand or even to have own authority.

Again quoting Hamilton in Federalist No. 78, "the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in capacity to annoy or injure them.  . . . It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its own judgments."

Alas, the judiciary has become as dangerous as the executive or legislative branches.  And it has done so creepingly over the past few decades.  Either under the blind eyes or with the complicity of presidents and congresses of both parties and all political persuasions, each for their own purposes.

The courts must be reigned in and limited to the nature of their original functions or liberty will continue to creep away . . . stolen by unelected judges . . . right from under our noses.  Sonia Sotomayor does not appear to be up to or accepting of that task.

Will she be The "Worst Mistake" Barack Obama Ever Made?

Today, Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court.  (Link to story here.)  If appointed, she will have life tenure, no matter how she rules.  She could be the liberal dream that Obama wants, or she could turn her back on his principles, as Earl Warren did to Dwight Eisenhower's.

At this point, I don't have much hope of that.  I'm virtually certain that the liberal vetting process on Sotomayor has been more thorough than Gerald Ford's was with John Paul Stevens or Ronald Reagan's with Anthony Kennedy or George H.W. Bush with David Souter.

But, miracles do happen, so it wouldn't hurt to say a prayer or two.  (Does it ever?)

If Sotomayor was replacing a conservative Justice, this would be worse.  But replacing Souter with another liberal is likely to make no major immediate difference.  It is only a lost opportunity to change the high court's dynamic.

At this point, I know very little about Sotomayor.  The fact that Obama appointed her is ominous enough.  (Sort of like his presence looming behind her in the photo here.)  As the confirmation process proceeds, more detail will become known.  Look for more analysis here, as the mood strikes me.

Pro-Lifers: We are not isolated crackpots! We are the MAJORITY opinion!

Don't expect much reporting of this in Big Media.  Reporters will continue to portray those of us who believe in the right of unborn children to live as a fringe minority . . . but they're wrong.

According to a Gallup poll released today (link here), 51% of                                                                          Americans are Pro-Life!

Only 42% of Americans call themselves Pro-Choice.  And only 22% believe that abortion should be legal in all circumstances.  23% of Americans believe that abortion should never be legal and 53% believe that it should be legal only under certain circumstances.  What those circumstances are is not defined but when that middle group is questioned further, 60% of them indicate no circumstances or only a few circumstances when abortion should be legal.

The long and short of it is this . . . a significant majority of Americans believe that life has value before birth and is deserving of legal protection.  Most of us believe that aborting a fetus should be illegal in most circumstances.  (Too bad most of America voted for a man who does not believe that but, alas, that's water under the bridge.)  Isn't the time here to make the majority view the law of the land?

Is there any hope that President Obama is a poll-watcher and will take this into account when determining who to nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court?  Well, no.  But, the issue should never have been fought there anyway.  

The Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in Roe v. Wade and the Pro-Life movement has been fighting back in our opponents' chosen forum for too long.  The killing of children should be stopped by the people through their elected representatives.  We can't rely on unelected judges to do the right thing or even to take themselves out of the fight.  The people must reassert their power.  If it takes an amendment to the Constitution, so be it.

Is the GOP listening?  Do Republicans want an issue to run on?  One with the support of a majority of Americans?

Specter the Scoundrel

Always a R.I.N.O. at best, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter today became an ass, well, a donkey anyway.  He switched to the Democrat Party.  (Link to story here.)  The switch comes a little over a month after Specter promised not to switch.  Imagine that, a lying politician.

What's this all about?  

For Specter . . . personal power . . . he wants to keep his Senate seat and faced a serious threat from conservative Pat Toomey in the 2010 primary.  Toomey, without the support of GOP leadership, almost defeated Specter in 2004.  Specter must have seen the writing on the wall.

For the Democrats . . . 59 Senators in their caucus and counting.  Al Franken in Minnesota would make a filibuster-proof majority and effectively give them total control of the federal government.

For the Supreme Court . . . assurance that any liberal appointed by Obama will sail through without a fight.  Conservatives (and Republicans) will have no chance to stop the freight train and whatever slim chance may have existed there is now no chance to overturn Roe v. Wade in our lifetimes.  Someone once said, it is all about abortion.

For the GOP . . . hopefully, a wake-up call.  Specter should not have been coddled in the party in the first place.  He's a liberal and doesn't belong.  Other liberals don't belong either.  And now, without the possibility of a filibuster anyway, why continue to coddle the others.  The Republican Party needs to stand for something . . .  conservatism.  It should be something more than a label.  

Maybe it will be again one day.

Knockout in Nashville

It's over.  The 2008 presidential election ended tonight, in Nashville, Tennessee, when John McCain met Barack Obama for their second debate and utterly failed to deliver.  

Obama delivered.  His presentation was smooth and confident.  He stuck - roughly - to the topics presented and made his case.  

McCain's presentation was choppy and erratic.  Whatever momentum Sarah Palin gave the McCain campaign is spent.  I don't believe that he said anything different tonight than we've heard a dozen times before - and he didn't even say it in a different way.  It was the same old John McCain tonight.  The same old McCain who is BEHIND in the polls already and fading.  But he doesn't seem to realize it.

Reality is setting in at Saint Louis Conservative.  Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States.  That fact has significant implications and should prompt the conservative movement into action.  The sooner the better.

We have to put an end to conservative complacency.  Conservatives haven't had a leader emerge since Ronald Reagan.  In a previous post I asked if the appointment of Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court was the worst mistake that Ronald Reagan ever made.  Allow me to answer that question now . . . it wasn't.  Ronald Reagan's worst mistake was the selection of George H.W. Bush as his running mate instead of a true conservative.  Picking Bush as his V.P. resulted in turning over the keys to the Republican party to a moderate after eight years of Reagan's leadership.  Bush 41 begot Clinton who begot Bush 43 . . . next comes Obama.  How would history have changed if Reagan had nominated Jack Kemp instead of Bush?  We need leadership.  Will it be coming from Alaska?  Louisiana?

Maybe the next great conservative doesn't even hold an elected office yet.  But it is time to focus on the grassroots levels of politics to develop such a leader (or leaders).  We need conservative mayors and council members, state representatives and senators.  Get to know who is running.  Support the conservatives.  Run yourself even.

We also have to retake the GOP or leave it.  For years, the Republican Party has tried to be a "big tent" party where folks were welcomed in no matter what they believed in.  Party membership these days requires only a preference for elephants over donkeys.  You don't have to believe in lower taxes, smaller government, military strength, the right to life, or anything else for that matter.  Just agree to vote with "our" block come election day and you're in.  The party will support you.  That must change.  If the party doesn't stand for something, it shouldn't stand at all.

As long as conservatives remain in the GOP, we must prepare ourselves to be an opposition party once again.  Historically, we're good at it.  Principled opposition stopped the Hillary Clinton socialized medicine plan.  Conservative opposition stopped the amnesty for illegal immigrants bill.  We can't stop every bad thing the Democrats will propose but if attention is focused in Congress when it really matters, Republicans can remain a force to be reckoned with.

As pro-lifers, conservatives must realize that for our generation, we've lost the Supreme Court.  With an Obama presidency, we cannot expect in our lifetimes to gain the votes to overturn Roe v. Wade.  That "simple" solution is impossible.  So the time is now to focus our energies in other venues . . . public opinion and potentially a constitutional amendment to protect the rights of unborn children.  It is either that or give up the fight altogether.  I'm not willing to do that.  And the conservative movement can't be either.

Watch your wallet, endure the pain and prepare for midterm elections in 2010 and our next chance to regain the presidency . . . 2012.

Credit and Scorn to the Chicago Tribune

Reacting to the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision holding that the Second Amendment to the Constitution actually means what it says, today's editorial in the Chicago Tribune calls for a repeal of that portion of the Bill of Rights.

This call to action must not be heeded.  If the people are not allowed arms, there is one less check on tyrannical government.  The Tribune (no surprise) is wrong on the issue.

But they also deserve some credit.  An amendment to the Constitution is the right way to change what you don't like about it.  Unfortunately, we live in a country that allows unelected judges to "interpret" the Constitution and morph its clear language into whatever they want it to say.  In this way, the cornerstone document of our nation has been twisted so much that it now hardly resembles what was enacted by our founding fathers.

Maybe the Tribune will start a trend . . . instead of enacting policy by judicial fiat, maybe we'll go back to the people - or at least our elected representatives - having a voice.  (Just wishful thinking?)