NYT: Roberts Dissent Reveals Strain Beneath Court's Placid Surface

[Pirate Smile]

WASHINGTON, March 22 — A Supreme Court decision on Wednesday in an uncelebrated criminal case did more than resolve a dispute over whether the police can search a home without a warrant when one occupant gives consent but another objects.

More than any other case so far, the decision, which answered that question in the negative by a vote of 5 to 3, drew back the curtain to reveal the strains behind the surface placidity and collegiality of the young Roberts court.

-snip-
Rather, what was striking about the decision in Georgia v. Randolph, No. 04-1067, was the pointed, personal and acerbic tone in which the justices expressed their disagreement over whether the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches was violated when the police in Americus, Ga., arriving at a house to investigate a domestic dispute, accepted the wife's invitation to look for evidence of her husband's cocaine use.

The dueling opinions themselves were relatively straightforward; as has often been the case in the court's recent past, although not so far this term, the justices revealed their real feelings in the footnotes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/politics/23scotus.html?hp&ex=1143090000&en=01b7275745829d84&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[spindrifter]

1. This is where one gets into

a real argument about "activist judges." It is Roberts, after all, who is squealing about domestic violence victims, while the majority manages to stick to the issue of unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. State v. Davis will be another interesting match-up. It was argued Monday and deals with use of 911 tapes where a witness later refuses to testify or is unavailable. Again, it is in the context of domestic violence that we see the threat to the right to confront a witness. The confrontation clause is aimed at protecting far more than witnesses associated with a crime du jour, in this case d.v. Hopefully, the majority will put aside their desire to protect a particular class in favor of the need to protect all of us.

[Delphinus]

3. I happened to be listening to NPR

when they were talking about this. I knew Scalia and Thomas but couldn't figure out the third. Then they said Roberts, and I heard what kind of red herring he was using. I'm not associated with the law in any way and I knew that he was using any excuse in the book! He was trying to mix apples and oranges - and I'm glad there were enough of the others with common sense to vote this down.

[necso]

2. Interesting case.

PDF from SCOTUS: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1067.pdf