Original Inquisitor

by digby

Kieran Healy makes what I think is the most salient observation about the Supremes gutting of the fourth amendment in Hudson v. Michigan and I would really love to see some smart legal scholars ask Justice Scalia about it at his next controversial speech:

Scalia, writing for the majority, is happy to set his originalism aside and argue that the growth of “public-interest law firms and lawyers who specialize in civil-rights grievances … [and] the increasing professionalism of police forces, including a new emphasis on internal police discipline … [and] the increasing use of various forms of citizen review can enhance police accountability” all mean that the fourth amendment can be reinterpreted.

There have been many cases that put the lie to Scalia’s “originalism,” but in this one he isn’t even trying. He is claiming outright that the fourth amendment is no longer necessary because cops have adopted certain bureaucratic systems and are trained well so we don’t have to worry about government intrusion anymore. I suppose it’s possible that the founders would agree with him, I don’ know, but if they meant for the fourth amendment to be removed from the BOR once cops were trained to always do the right thing, then they made a big mistake and forgot to write it into the constitution. And I certainly haven’t seen the legislature submit an amendment to that effect, much less get it passed. Scalia is openly just making it up as he goes along now — and this new court is going to be just as bad as we predicted.

Is it just me or does the sight of Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas doing what they consider to be god’s work, remind you of something?

Via kevin drum