Consitution Debate

[CiberTHuG]

I clipped this from Slashdot.

In an important declaration of the constitutional limits on new privacy-threatening technology, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the use by the police of a thermal imaging device to detect patterns of heat coming from a private home is a search that requires a warrant. The court said further that the warrant requirement would apply not only to the relatively crude device at issue but also to any "more sophisticated systems" in use or in development that let the police gain knowledge that in the past would have been impossible without a physical entry into the home. "We must take the long view, from the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment forward," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for a 5-to-4 majority that cut across the court's usual ideological division. Justice Scalia said that to take any other approach "would leave the homeowner at the mercy of advancing technology, including imaging technology that could discern all human activity in the home." There is coverage in the: New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN.

My question is, the four who dissented? What in the hell were they thinking? I'm sure after all the years of study and presiding that they have some arcane knowledge that is well beyond me. Someone want to tell me what it is?

[barrk]

I'm surprised that with the conservative supreme court we have in place that there were any dissenters at all! That goodness some bit of common sense still prevails.

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by barrk
Thank goodness some bit of common sense still prevails.

I don't see the common sense? I mean, how could you think you could get away with an invasive search without a warrant? I don't understand. Next thing you will be telling me that mind-reading is completely admissible in court, and since it doesn't involve your home in any way, no one needs a warrant.

I think we've just underminded the idea behind the fourth and fifth admendments.

[barrk]

Hold the phone, Travis! I thought they decided that it was instrusive and did require a warrant.......did I read it wrong?

[CiberTHuG]

They did. But I must've misunderstood your response. I thought you were accrediting the dissenters with using common sense, because you said that after you said you were surprised that there were any in light of the conservative lean of the court.

One of those confusing antecedent things.

[barrk]

Just miscommunication, Travis. I'm on your wing 100% on this issue!

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by barrk
Just miscommunication, Travis. I'm on your wing 100% on this issue!

Ah, good. That is what I expected.

I also expect that the greater majority of this country agrees with this ruling. And I would imagine that the majority of those who disagree are of the dismissable mindset that "due process is something the liberals came up with to protect the criminals who don't need protecting and thus we shouldn't worry with a warrant at all."

So I'm wondering how we wound up with four Supreme Court Justices who are so maligned to the Consitution.

[barrk]

I would be very interested to read the dissenting opion.....if they make it a matter of public record.