Alito Appeared Not To Be Bothered By Strip Search of 10-Year-Old Girl
Alito's remark on strip search of girl, 10, prompts questions
As lawyer Andrew Solomon argued his client's case in 2003, before Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. of the federal Third Circuit Court, Alito raised a question.
''Why do you keep bringing up the fact that this case involves the strip search of a 10-year-old child?" Alito said, according to Solomon, lawyer for the girl.
Alito made his remark in a case that may become one of the most discussed of his career, as he heads toward Senate confirmation hearings in January.
Analysts familiar with Alito's decisions say the remark reflects his approach to law-and-order issues -- giving latitude and casting a skeptical eye on views that officers exceeded their authority.
Alito was the only member of a three-judge panel who thought the strip search of the girl and her mother was legal.
I find that rather disturbing, but what do I know? I'm just a crazy, evul librul.
by MG at 7:55 PM
15 Comments:
So what?
I noticed that biased spin was put on it.
a 10 year old "child" was not good enough for the headlines.
what if it was a 10 yr old boy?
Does gender really matter?
Lets face it; it has "shock value" as a girl.
I was searched as a child. No big deal.
btw
I think he is a good choice!
His Honor will let dust accumulate on our constitution.
That's a "conservative" for you....
For all their talk about small, limited government and the Constitution...(which is a limitation on government power)...most Conservatives have never met an abuse of power they didn't like....
Oh wait...when a Democrat does it...it's wrong... But otherwise, it's ok.
I've got mixed feelings about Alito... I'm still reserving my judgement...
Iggy -- Please don't refer to yourself as a libertarian anymore. It's just clear you're not.
I find it very disturbing that he has no problem with strip searching a 10 yr old girl.
ScAlito lied to congress before, when he promised to recuse himself from any case involving Vanguard. So why are we even still talking about him?
So mox, you're just a crazy, evul librul.
lol
Reminds me of this great article...
Liberalism vs. Conservatism and Right-Wing Radicalism
http://www.mikehersh.com/Liberalism_vs_Conservatism.shtml
Conservative: "[A]n adherent or advocate of political conservatism ... one who adheres to traditional methods or views ... a cautious or discreet person."
Liberal: "[O]ne who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways ... an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights."...
Historically, all of the American "Founding Fathers," all of the philosophers who influenced them and Adam Smith were liberals. Liberals led the fight against the British Crown, while conservatives - calling themselves Tories - remained loyal to King George III. Liberals like Jefferson, Madison, Adams and Franklin defined the logical and philosophical underpinnings of the new nation in documents like the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.
In short, liberals "invented" the USA, capitalism - nearly every positive social, political and economic advancement. Liberals ended slavery and fought racism. Liberals strictly limited child labor and demanded dignity and fairness for working people. Liberals fought against establishment of an official state religion. This is no shock, since by definition liberals remain open-minded, forward thinking, and adaptable.
Liberals achieved all this and more over strong opposition from conservatives. Again, no surprise because by definition conservatives cling to the past, fear change, and reject most innovation as threats to tradition. At least until liberals prove the changes improve life and the innovations become "new traditions." Then real conservatives defend that status quo against further improvements....
Oh those crazy, evul libruls.
”Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.”
John Stuart Mill
Iggy, you might want to actually read the article before commenting about "biased" terminology. If you had actually read it, you would have seen that the article covered several issues, including the illegal search of a 10-year-old girl and the illegal search of a 17-year-ol boy.
But I will give you one thing. The gender of the child is irrelevant from a legal standpoint. What is relevant is the fact that the warrant that had been issued was for the search of a specifically named man, and when the cops couldn't find him they decided to strip search a woman and child they found at the residence. Alito basically tried to rule that police can, on a whim and of their own accord, change who and what they are allowed to search no matter what the warrant says. So much for the 4th Amendment.
Phil
http://nomadechoes.blogdrive.com
I find it rather telling that Iggy seems to think there is a difference between strip-searching a girl and a boy. Personally, that thought would never have even crossed my mind. But when you're looking for bias, I guess you can find it anywhere.
The question is WHY did they strip search a 10 year old girl? Not that it would have been okay, but really... Were parents present? Was there a court order? Did she have a gun? Did she pose a threat? Jesus Christ, she was 10!!!
What is it with you, Iggy? You a graduate of Heinrich Himmler High? Do be a good chap and remember to ask Santa for some humanity and a personality this Christmas...
Heads up, Moxie, the Pentagon wants more powers to spy on U.S. citizens:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/26/AR2005112600857.html
N.
Wow Iggy!
I say let's do what ever we can to keep bozo out of the Supreme Court.
This is the action of a state against its nation, fascism would be better then this shit, even "gung-ho heebs #1, yay israel" people have to start admitting it.
Alito's statement shouldn't provoke controversy. The issue being argued before the court was whether the warrant covered the young girl and her mother as well as her father, who was the only person specifically named in the warrant. After reading the case it is apparent that the girl's name was omitted due to a clerical error. If the warrant had specifically authorized the police to search the person of the young girl then the other judges on the panel would not have disagreed with Alito. Their disagreement was over the interpretation of the warrant's language...not over whether a ten year old girl may be searched.
Given this context, Alito was probably wondering why the defense lawyer was apparently emphasizing facts (the child's age, gender, and the manner of the search) that were irrelevant to the decision that the court faced. Likely he saw through the lawyer's attempt to play upon the sympathetic nature of his client--a tactic repeated by Alito foes who scream "Alito wants to strip-search your 10-year-old daughter!!!" in hopes of preventing people from making a reasoned analysis of his judicial decisions.
It is not at all clear that it was left out due to a clerical error. Cops don't casually decide what kind of warrant to ask for, and we hope judges don't grant warrants casually. The judge who issued it never said he had made an error.
What the cops claimed in court was that they didn't ask for a broader warrant because there wasn't room on the line on the form. You can believe this if you want, but it can't be the first time they had to use this form; cops ask for warrants every day of the week. Either way, it's not an "error," it's a choice. A binding choice.
So Alito said the cops had misunderstood, and had sort of implied a broader request by including information about other possible subjects for search, and that the judge had implied he was granting that implied request, by granting the warrant. Maybe they all just telepathically beamed the real request and warrant back and forth at each other. Hey, we could just use that system from now on, skip the whole writing things down deal.
So, whether by laziness, stupidity, or deliberate choice to make sure they could get any warrant at all, the cops asked in plain English for a narrow warrant, not a broad one. When executing that warrant didn't produce results, they decided to pretend that they had asked for and received a much broader warrant. Instead of, you know, carrying out the law.
As it turned out, their abuse of power doesn't even have the excuse of success -- the strip-search ALSO produced nothing. The whole search was a dud. They just didn't want to admit that they were wasting their time, so they strip-searched two innocent people, one of them a ten-year old girl, with no authority. Remind me again why we bothered having a Revolution?
All the rhetoric aside what does the actuall case and decisions say. Was the issue the actual strip search or the warrant itself? What were the issues of law argued before the court?
For Trilobyte! There was a document containing more information included with the warrant. It appears as the actual argument about the TOTAL search rests on if the additional paper is in fact part of the warrant.
Here's what I was looking for!
"Next, Schumer misrepresented Alito's dissent in the Groody case, claiming that Alito had written that "a 10-year old girl could be stripped searched even though the warrant did not call for her to be strip searched." But the issue in that case was whether the warrant authorized the search (specifically, whether the warrant incorporated the affidavit attached to it that had been submitted to the court). Alito thought that it did. He did not state that, if the search was not authorized by the warrant, it was still permissible. In any event, the issue in that case was whether police officers could be sued personally for the search. In that context, the question was not what the warrant actually authorized, but what the officer reasonably thought it authorized."
(John from "powerline")
Post a Comment
<< Home