Colbert Does Bush

Sunday, April 30, 2006

Last night C-Span televised the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner featuring Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert as the lead roaster.

Liberals are furious the media isn't making a bigger deal of the skewering, claiming Colbert was brilliant and "biting," and that the pro-Bush press (an oxymoron if I've ever heard one) refused to laugh because they were afraid to upset our Great Leader.

Or maybe Colbert just wasn't that funny. Admittedly I missed the show because I have better things to do on Saturday nights, but The Huffington Post is deep in conspiracy theories and both Atrios and Kouskous give Colbert two thumbs up for hammering the president.

Conservatives on the other hand believe he bombed. I don’t know who to believe, but if Colbert was anything like his pal Jon Stewart doing the Oscars then there’s a reason why you didn’t hear much laughter.

Somebody Must be Listening

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

I'm getting a little tired of these doomsday reports regarding progressive radio. Forever Bill O'Reilly has been gloating over the financial troubles at Air America Radio, having predicted many times its early demise. This new Drudge flash reports: "Left-leaning new media has hit turbulence at the marketplace, newly released stats show."

Yet Air America is in its third year and continues to find markets despite conservatives telling us no one's listening. Until the network is dead I find it pointless to talk about how poorly it's doing.

When it first premired a few years back I looked forward to Al Franken's comedic take on the political issues, but unscripted the monotone pundit is mediocre at best. I used to tolerate Randi Rhodes but she's just another liberal shrill who says the same thing everyday about how horrible conservatives are.

I won't miss Air America when it's gone, but that's if it ever leaves. Fewer people than ever may be tuning in, but somewhere Al Franken is still talking into a microphone.

Oh Jesus

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Leave it to Georgia to test, try and instigate America's tolerance for religion in the public square. When enough people find out about this class, head for cover:

ATLANTA - Georgia became what is believed to be the first state to offer government-sanctioned elective classes on the Bible, with Gov. Sonny Perdue signing a bill into law Thursday.

The governor also signed a bill permitting the display of the Ten Commandments at courthouses, an issue that has raised thorny constitutional questions.

Critics say the measures blur the line between church and state.

The new law allows elective classes on the Bible to be taught to high school students. Local school systems will decide whether to teach the courses.

Thanks to a ridiculously pragmatic and indecisive Supreme Court last term, we don't really know how constitutional the Ten Commandments are in public (in one case the display wrongly promoted religion, in another it justifiably promoted history; both cases would most likely be constitutional now that Alito has replaced O'Connor who was left-leaning on religion).

It is my belief the First Amendment bars our government from sponsoring a religion in an official capacity. I don't believe it is offended when a public school offers an elective course on the matter. In Georgia's case, the Bible. Nor do I believe the First Amendment would be offended by a Ten Commandments display just as long as its purpose isn't to enforce religious dogma on the populace.

Naturally the law will be tried in federal judiciary, but the current markup of the Supreme Court, I believe, will allow it to stand as it should. No one is compelled to take the religious course, and no one is forced to recognize a monument of the Ten Commandments during their business at the courthouse.

Media Bias, Good Book, Old Justice and Playboy

• I'm amazed we still debate whether or not the media is liberal when mainstream publications like Rolling Stone routinely publish articles about the worst president in history.
  
  
• Just finished reading an advance copy of Ramesh Ponnuru's The Party of Death, a great book on abortion and other cultural issues. It hasn't been officially released yet but you can snatch up a copy right now from Amazon. A review is forthcoming.
  
  
• Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens turns 86 today. Congratulations, Your Honor. I wish you a happy and healthy birthday with many more to come, but to celebrate them on a golf course instead of the Supreme Court.
  
  
• Baylor University has barred female students from posing in Playboy, the famous skin rag that's recruiting students for their women of the Big 12 issue. Being that Baylor bills itself as the largest Baptist college in the world, you have to wonder why some of the students there are either surprised or unhappy with the decision.

One More Album I Won't Buy

Monday, April 17, 2006

Stop what you're doing! In a startling development, some rock musician has come out against President Bush! And how. According to Reuters and other sources, Neil Young has recorded a 10-song "protest album featuring an anti-Iraq war track with 'a holy vow to never kill again' and a song titled 'Let's Impeach the President.'"

Chalk up another moron who thinks Congress has the time and wherewithal to proceed with impeachment hearings when there's more important business being neglected. And again, impeaching President Bush would only mean making Dick Cheney the new president. Bush-haters seem to forget that when dreaming of a country without Bush.

Oh, but we'll get Cheney too!

And Rumsfeld!

And Rice!

And then the whole damn GOP!

Going Nowhere Fast

Despite the media hype and partisan rhetoric, the confirmation battles of now-Chief Justice John Roberts and now-Justice Samuel Alito were just preseason games. The next confirmation fight could be the Super Bowl if the next justice to retire/die is one of the five moderate-to-liberal justices.

Conservative activists have to be frothing at the mouth now as their party may not have control of the Senate (the house that approves or rejects a president's nominee) seven months from now, and you can be sure at least one liberal justice will try his best to hang on until at least the midterm elections (emphasis added):

WASHINGTON - As Justice John Paul Stevens turns 86 this week, he is the latest jurist to watch in what has become, during President Bush's second term, a vulturine pastime for ideological activists: predicting the next vacancy on the Supreme Court.

Stevens, a Republican who votes with the liberal bloc of the court and who declined an interview for this story, has announced no plans for retirement. In the mid-1970s, he had heart bypass surgery and a polyp removed from his colon, and in the early 1990s, he was treated for prostate cancer. But these days, acquaintances say the Shakespeare buff who has piloted his own planes and plays tennis is healthy, even spry. They say he dabbled with the idea of retirement years ago and instead compromised -- with a condo in Florida where he can read briefs and spend time with his wife, who has had health problems, when he is not needed in court.

Having spent time in South Florida I can't say I'm surprised there are 86-year-olds out there playing tennis and flying planes, but if the good justice is going to stay on this earth for awhile longer I'd sure like him a whole lot more if he'd just retire so that less opinions by Ruth Bader Ginsburg (and John Paul Stevens) will be majority ones.

Just Take Him Away Already

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

If this kid suffers any trauma later in life, I won't be surprised if it's because the media obsesses over every incident:

At least one social worker, accompanied by deputies, visited [Britney] Spears' Malibu home Saturday afternoon, L.A. County Sheriff's Lieutenant Debra Glafkides said Wednesday.

The visit occurred after the pop star's seven-month-old son was diagnosed with a skull fracture, Star magazine reported Wednesday.

Spears' baby, Sean Preston, was injured Mar. 31 in a high chair mishap while in the care of his nanny in California. Spears and Federline were in Dallas at the time, the tabloid said.

Add this story to the one about Britney driving with the kid on her lap and you've got a candidate for Worst Mother of the Year. Or maybe accidents happen to kids - being that they're kids - and the media should find something more important to obsess over and leave the Spears' family alone.

The Best Way to Protest Scalia

Saturday, April 08, 2006

Gay students at the University of Connecticut are planning to protest the arrival of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who will soon be delivering a speech at the law school. To show their contempt for his not finding a right to homosexual sodomy in the U.S. Constitution, some of the protesters are planning a same-sex kissing booth:

Some members of the Lambda Law Society, a gay student organization, said they plan to hold a mini-carnival with a same-sex kissing booth during Scalia's lecture.

The group objects to Scalia's stance on gay issues, including his dissent in the Lawrence vs. Texas case, which struck down a law prohibiting homosexual sodomy.

"There's a lot of contentiousness about this because we want to attempt to convey our lack of respect for the justice, but do so in a way that's not offensive but is also fun," said Gavan Meehan, the society's president.

It's not just about showing a "lack of respect" for a justice with whom they disagree, it's about being an immature ass. For the life of me I can't imagine what a gay make-out party would accomplish. It's not like the justice is calling for a law against being gay.

But if you want to protest, I've got a much better idea that will get you a lot more media mileage than a kissing booth: express your displeasure with Scalia's dissent in Stenberg v. Carhart by finding a pregnant woman in her ninth month who would be willing to undergo a partial-birth abortion in public view. An abortion booth would not only be cooler than a same-sex kissing booth, it would also be a lot more original.

Limits of Child Porn Regulation

Friday, April 07, 2006

It's a thriving, depraved industry that's seeing little resistance from the majority of countries around the world. A bleak report from Security Pipeline:

At a press conference in Washington, D.C., the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children and other participants presented a study on Thursday that reveals the woeful inadequacy of child pornography laws around the world.

The ICMEC's global policy review of child pornography laws in 184 Interpol-member countries shows that more than half have no laws that specifically address child pornography and in many others the existing laws are insufficient.

The ICMEC study found that possession of child pornography is not a crime in 138 countries. In 122 countries, there's no law dealing with the use of computers and the Internet as a means of child porn distribution.

Only five countries - Australia, Belgium, France, South Africa and the United States - have laws deemed adequate by ICMEC to address the issue.

As ahead as the United States is with federal laws against producing/possessing child porn written in the books, it hardly prevents Americans from accessing the contraband; much of it produced and distributed in foreign countries where offenders can easily get away with exploiting children.

The federal government went so far as to pass the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 which made it a crime to possess "virtual" child porn, a law that encompassed drawings, cartoons and computer generated images. The Supreme Court rightly struck it down in a 6-3 ruling on free speech grounds, suggesting virtual pornography can be construed as art if no real minors are being used.

"Real" child pornography, however, is still federally outlawed as far as interstate commerce is concerned, but the problem for law enforcement is catching the offender in the act, being that most perverts don't download child porn in the public library.

And if Americans have such an easy time finding child porn, one could imagine how easy it is in countries with less effective law enforcement.

Queer Logic

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

The homosexual-hater is a reminder to Gay Wired just how important it is to win elections:

Justice Scalia's Anti-Gay Comments are Reminder of Need for Fair-Minded Legislators

(Washington, D.C.) - Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese has released a statement condemning comments Justice Antonin Scalia made recently at a Swiss law school claiming there is no Constitutional right to "homosexual conduct."

"Justice Scalia stubbornly refuses to see that all Americans have a right to liberty and privacy under the law," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "Justice Scalia was dangerously out of step with Americans in 2003 when the Supreme Court decided this question and he remains so today.

"This is just the latest example of why it's so critical that fair-minded Americans think of the Court when they head to the ballot box. With the Supreme Court tipping further to the right, these sentiments could one day become reality."

According to a clip aired on CNN, on March 8, 2006, Justice Scalia told students at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland:

"Question comes up: is there a constitutional right to homosexual conduct? Not a hard question for me. It's absolutely clear that nobody ever thought when the Bill of Rights was adopted that it gave a right to homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct was criminal for 200 years in every state. Easy question."

This article simply highlights the ignorance of activist partisans who refuse to accept the role of Supreme Court justices as interpreters of the Constitution instead of guardians of society's moral values.

Here we have a justice who is labeled "anti-gay" because he can't find a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy in the U.S. Constitution. But Justice Scalia believes the Constitution fails to protect the right to "privacy" of any kind, so natural that includes gay sex and heterosexual sodomy. Following the logic of the author, Justice Scalia must also be "anti-straight."

There's a reason why the framers left out a right to privacy in the Constitution, and one of the more obvious explanations is that crimes can be committed in a zone of privacy and should be regulated by the states. Such crimes that can take place include possession of child pornography, illegal weapons, illegal drugs, prostitution and gambling. If the state can regulate these activities (and most agree kiddy porn is a bad thing) then it can also regulate -- according to Justice Scalia though not by the Court's majority -- abortion, contraceptives, and homosexual sodomy.

Oliver Stone: Celebrities Not Worshipped Enough

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Here's an interesting little read at Contactmusic.com from a director who's no stranger to controversy:

Movie-maker OLIVER STONE has blasted media groups who "slander" celebrities for their political comments - because intelligent stars have every right to question their leaders. The Vietnam veteran, who is a fierce opponent of the US leadership, is appalled every time a celebrity is rudely mocked for making his or her thoughts about PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH and the war in Iraq public, and he urges journalists to be more supportive.

The NATURAL BORN KILLERS director says, "We're Hollywood wackos and all that stuff, left-wing... (It's) an easy and facile dismissal. I'm still a citizen, I've served my country as a veteran, I've had many jobs before the film business. I know something of life, having lived to this age. We have a right to speak and every time we speak: 'You're an actor, a showbusiness director,' we're making it up! This is not a way of dealing with people. This is slander."

Either the website formatting is to fault or Stone is just incoherent, as the comment is rather unintelligible; but the message is clear. Stone is imagining a hostile media toward loud-mouth celebrities, but save for Fox News Hollywood is the media's darling. They've always had a forum provided by said media to espouse their typical liberal views on everything.

Occasionally, entertainment outlets like South Park take them to task for it. Hey, nobody told George Clooney to talk about being the "sexiest man in Hollywood" during his acceptance speech. He was due for a lampooning.

Nobody minds when celebrities speak their views, we're used to it. But when they get crazy…as Sharon Stone recently did with these "words of wisdom" (so says Salon) during a promotion for Bombed Instinct 2: "It's traumatizing for me to come to Washington during a Republican administration because I don't have any Republican clothes..."

And that's tame for a Hollywood celebrity.

Hammered Out

Monday, April 03, 2006

The hammer has hammered his last nail. Ok, I apologize for that one. This is probably good for Republicans as they'll be looking to clean up their image for the pivotal 2006 congressional election that's certainly not looking good for them despite fewer seats to lose than their opponents. Will people remember Tom DeLay eight months from now? That might matter.

The former majority leader who has served in the House for 21 years will not seek reelection. With everyone affiliated with the GOP going down in these recent months one must wonder how there are any Republicans left in Congress. If Democrats can't capitalize this year I don't see them making any substantial gains for a long, long time.

Violent Congresswoman Not Yet Out of Woods

While liberal bloggers hope charges will be filed against Ann Coutler for aledgedly voting in the wrong precinct, they have been curiously silent about Democratic congresswoman Cynthia McKinney's refusal to stop at a congressional security checkpoint and subsequent assault on an officer.

No charges have been filed yet but the case has been forwarded to a federal prosecutor for further examination. But because Ms. McKinney wasn't arrested at the scene as she should have been, I see little purpose in dragging the case through the mud and wasting the district attorney's time. He has more important things to mull, such as Justice Scalia's outrageously offensive gesture that almost killed a reporter.

UPDATE: U.S. Capitol Police have now sought an arrest warrant for the flamboyant congresswoman. So I guess they're really serious about this. I wonder how long the liberal blogs will remain silent for.

Stalking Scalia

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Today's Ronald Cass piece is a great read that covers the media sensationalism flanking Justice Scalia:

One of the week's big news stories was the dramatic account of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, accosted outside a Boston Mass, using a Sicilian hand gesture to explain what he would say to people who question his very public commitment to Catholicism. The implicit question wasn't whether it was alright for a judge to be a practicing Catholic. Instead, it was whether Scalia was improperly committed to positions on cases coming before the Court. Especially on matters like abortion, where the Catholic Church has an official position.

Yet publicly committing to a position - or to a set of beliefs and interpretations - is exactly what liberal Senators and the interest groups that support them were demanding during the recent confirmation hearings of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. No one on the Left seemed concerned that the nominees would be open to criticism, or even recusal, if they declared on the record that the Constitution contained a right to privacy that protected women seeking abortions from state interference or if they embraced a particularly expansive vision of such a right.

Despite the media virtually ignoring the nap Justice Ginsburg took during oral arguments two weeks ago, it never lets go of Scalia because, as Cass notes, "Scalia is the leading voice for a set of legal propositions that run counter to the political, social, and constitutional agenda of the dominant voices in almost every major element of America's Speaking elites."

Liberal blogger Atrios, a proud atheist (go figure), has suddenly become offended that Scalia might have made an improper gesture inside a church: "In other words, he didn't just make the sign for 'f**k you' he said 'f**k you.' In church. What will we tell the children."

I can't blame the justice for dismissing the reporter with that (hardly explicit) gesture, for he did not want to be bothered while attending religious services. He is routinely hounded to a greater degree than any other justice, by a mob of media elites who couldn't hold a candle to Scalia's intellectual capacity.

Ben Domenech on Plagiarizers

Monday, March 27, 2006

After reading this tidbit you never would have assumed the author himself was a serial plagiarist, but then again, can we really be so sure this is an original work of Benny boy:

Jayson Blair refuses to have any sense of guilt over his actions at the New York Times. He says he received no preferential treatment. He says he deserves to be hailed as a genius for his elaborate lies. He says he laughed at the sheer inaccuracy of his cliched description of Jessica Lynch's West Virginia family home.

Jayson Blair is just one more journalistic pezzonovante amidst a crowd of his peers. The only difference is, he's unashamed of his pretty little lies. In fact, he's proud of them.

The ultimate insult that we could pay towards this wretch would be to forget him. He deserves no more of our time.

Tough talk from a guy who was also unashamed of his lies when he denied his unforgivable activities, only to finally semi-apologize when the piles of evidence stacked against him towered too tall.

And before today we thought we couldn't loath Benny boy anymore than we already did, but now we have him on record berating a fraud no worse than the righteous man himself.

Kudos to INDC Journal and Michelle Malkin for not burying this embarrassing episode we can and should all learn from.

Farewell Creep

Saturday, March 25, 2006

As the hours pass more and more documents "written" by disgraced conservative writer Ben Domenech are turning out to be works of plagiarism, and while he'd like to think otherwise, the detective work is not only being done by mean liberals, but by the victims of his work such as conservative outfit National Review which has turned up uncomfortable amounts of plagiarized work. This whole mess now begs the question: has Benny written a single article that's original?

I was angry when I learned he plagiarized after I endorsed his blog. I became extremely angry when he went on the offensive against the liberals who took him down and continued to fight the accusations with excuses, and now words don't express my feelings for this creep who still hasn't released a full apology after scores of documents have surfaced with his byline though written by someone else. Here's his latest:

I want to apologize to National Review Online, my friends and colleagues here at RedState, and to any others that have been affected over the past few days. I also want to apologize to my previous editors and writers whose work I used inappropriately and without attribution. There is no excuse for this - nor is there an excuse for any obfuscation in my earlier statement.

What about an apology to the writers such as Flick Filosopher with whom you have no affiliation? What about to the conservative bloggers as whole who believe their own reputations have been tarnished because of your serial plagiarism?

I hope that nothing I've done as a teenager or in my professional life will reflect badly on the movement and principles I believe in.

There he goes again with his teenager nonsense and his "principles." Seventeen-year-olds should be held to the same level of accountability that adults are when doing the same work. I'm sure, like most conservatives, Ben boy believes minors who commit murder should face no less severe a sentence as they were able to walk the walk just like the worst of them.

I'm deeply grateful for the love and encouragment (sic) of all those around me. And although I may not deserve such support, it makes it that much more humbling at a time like this. I'm a young man, and I hope that in time that I can earn a measure of the respect that you have given me.

Regards,

Ben

Yeah, he spelled "encouragement" wrong, but at this point we can't be surprised by anything from red face. And no Benny boy, you don't deserve any support or any measure of respect. You apparently love to play to "kiddy card" and for that you should be treated as such. Now go to your room. I hope we've heard the last from you.

And finally, I hope the conservatives bloggers out there will follow my steps and those of Aggressive-Voice reader The Gentle Cricket and remove all positive likes to RedState.org, which at this time is still allowing him to write there. RedState readers for the most part have forgiven him for what is inexcusable.

Further Disgracing Himself

Friday, March 24, 2006

Ben Domenech, the conservative and former blogger at Red America who resigned after being accused of plagiarism, has posted a rebuttal to the charges...well, some a few of them. Sadly, it's mostly him blaming the liberals who tried to bring him down. You can read the entire thing for yourself, but here is just his partial response to some of the plagiarism charges, and they're weak:

I know that charges of plagiarism are serious. While I am not a journalist, I have, myself, written more than one thing that has been plagiarized in the past. But these charges have also served to create an atmosphere where no matter what is said on my Red America blog, leftists will focus on things with my byline from when I was a teenager.

Virtually every other alleged instance of plagiarism that I've seen comes from a single semester's worth of pieces that were printed under my name at my college paper, The Flat Hat, when I was 17.

Since when does being a teenager excuse oneself from plagiarism, or any act for that matter? When conservatives generally have no problem seeing death sentences handed out to criminals for committing acts at 17, certainly someone of the same age caught plagiarizing deserves no pardon.

My critics have also accused me of plagiarism in multiple movie reviews for the college paper. I once caught an editor at the paper inserting a line from The New Yorker (which I read) into my copy and protested. When that editor was promoted, I resigned. Before that, insertions had been routinely made in my copy, which I did not question. I did not even at that time read the publications from which I am now alleged to have lifted material.


But all these specifics are beside the point. Considering that all of this happened almost eight years ago, and that there are no files or notes that I've kept from that brief stint, it is simply my word against the liberal blogosphere on these examples. It becomes a matter of who you believe.

Well we're certainly not going to believe you!

Conveniently, Mr. Domenech fails to defend his review of "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within," a film released not eight years ago but in 2001. His review is almost identical to Steve Murray's of Cox News Service, and I'd like to know if an editor messed with that one too. From Kos; the first paragraph being Domenech's review, the second is Murray's:

Translucent and glowing, they ooze up from the ground and float through solid walls, splaying their tentacles and snapping their jaws, dripping a discomfiting acidic ooze. They're known as the Phantoms, otherworldly beings who, for three decades, have been literally sucking the life out of the earthlings of the human. They are swollen, insectoid, the nightmare descendents of Lovecraftian grotesque - if only the filmmakers had created a plot that was as memorable.

***

Translucent and glowing, they ooze up from the ground and float through solid walls, wriggling countless tentacles and snapping their jaws. They're known as the Phantoms, alien thingies that, for three decades, have been sucking the life out of the earthlings of "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within." Swollen nightmares from a petri dish, they're the kind of grotesque whatsits horror writer H.P. Lovecraft would have kept as pets in his basement.

How can you defend that? Well obviously that's a tough task which is why he chose to defend some other charges while ignoring the big ones such as this. Where's the apology? Instead of blaming liberals (though admitted some have taken their attacks too far) he should be manning up to his errors, and we should be thanking the lefties for uncovering a dishonest plagiarizer whom at this point is still refusing to come clean.

Disgraced Conservative Resigns

Just a few days ago I endorsed a new blog over at the Washington Post site called Red America. Turns out its author, Ben Domenech, is a serial plagiarist who repeatedly stole whole paragraphs from other writers' works and claimed authorship. This scandal might have gone unnoticed had it not been for the detective work of some liberal bloggers who did not like the idea of a conservative running the blog of a mainstream newspaper.

As someone who has been plagiarized in the past (most recently by a college newspaper columnist) I am glad Mr. Domenech resigned from his gig and wish him the best in his future endeavors, just as long as they're not in the field of journalism.

Your Crazy World

Thursday, March 23, 2006

There are many, many other stories I'd rather be reading about than Star Jones' successful breast-lift surgery, and I'm sure you feel the same. Here are some random pickings:

• Kansans can now carry concealed weapons if they successfully apply for a permit, thanks to the state House that overrode Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' veto. We can now add Kansas to the list of growing states that allow citizens to protect themselves in public.
  
  
• A tortoise that was living in a zoo died today, but don't feel too bad; he was 250 years old! One must wonder why God (or nature, for you trail mix eaters) would allow such a simple animal with such little purpose in life to live on this planet for so long. I guess maybe, its purpose is greater than what mankind can understand. The amazing story here.
  
  
• As if you needed another reason to quit smoking, cigarettes apparently cause impotence. According to the study men who smoke are up to 40 percent more likely to suffer from impotence than those who don't. That's a pretty good reason to quit, although for some perhaps impotence is not such a bad thing.
  
  
• And speaking of cigarettes, one was apparently the cause of a cruise ship fire that killed one passenger and injured up to a dozen. Not a good day for tobacco.
  
  
• High school teens are dumb for advertising booze parties on MySpace, a site where bored teens pretend to know stuff and complete mindless surveys about their favorite color and number of times they've taken a shower today. They also advertise when and where the parties are at, and police couldn't be happier for this helpful service.

More later, kids.

Supreme Court Deals Blow to Law Enforcement

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

In one of the most important cases of Chief Justice John Roberts' first term, Georgia v. Randolph, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 (Alito not participating) today that police cannot search a home without a warrant when one resident invites them in but another tells them to beat it.

Writing for the majority, Justice Souter expressed concern that permitting police to enter a residence when an occupant objected would deny him his Fourth Amendment rights: "Assuming that both spouses are competent, neither one is a master possessing the power to override the other's constitutional right to deny entry to their castle."

Castle? That's pretty strong language for a justice who ruled last year that the government can forcibly buy your "castle" and sell it to a private interest. Souter was joined by the other three liberals and the increasingly left-leaning Justice Kennedy.

In his first written dissent on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts wrote a lengthy diatribe, saying the decision "apparently forbids police from entering to assist with a domestic dispute if the abuser whose behavior prompted the request for police assistance objects."

Justices Scalia and Thomas, both of whom joined Roberts' opinion, also wrote dissents. All of the fun can be read here.

Whether the right call was made or not the decision will have a major impact on how law enforcement officers deal with the public.

More later.