Re: good SCOTUS decision
- From: "Jim Brown" <jimbo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:49:11 -0500
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1293djpcit2rv35@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,get
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, TimV:
"Jon Enslin" <jenslin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1150398312.713605.273930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
stephenj wrote:
of course A4 jurisprudence will always be somewhat wacky until they
didn'trid of the court-made-up "exclusionary rule".
The exclusionary rule makes perfect sense. What is the use of the
Amendment in the first place if there isn't a bar on the evidence
seized?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/15/scotus.search/index.html
Literal interpretation mode on:
The constitution may have barred illegal search and seizure, but it
theimplicitly bar the use of evidence seized illegally. Therefore, since
consititution is mute on that point, laws regarding the use of said
illegally seized evidence are the purview of the states.
Wow, that's what it feels like to think like Thomas and Scalia.
How about this one: The Constitution may ban cruel and unusual
punishment, but it does not ban the government from paying someone
to perform cruel and unusual punishment, as long as it is done on
foreign soil.
rich
Your "cruel and unusual punishment" and mine is a far wider bridge.
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ The Bill Clinton of RSFC
.
- References:
- good SCOTUS decision
- From: stephenj
- Re: good SCOTUS decision
- From: Jon Enslin
- Re: good SCOTUS decision
- From: TimV
- Re: good SCOTUS decision
- From: rich hammett
- good SCOTUS decision
- Prev by Date: Re: David Brooks NIA
- Next by Date: Re: Why my iPod is special to me.
- Previous by thread: Re: good SCOTUS decision
- Next by thread: Re: good SCOTUS decision
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|