Monday, October 01, 2012

T'row De Bum Out!

Another week, another remind that State Supreme Court Justice Steven H. David is up for his sole-and-only retention vote come election day.

     Why is this important?  You see, Mr. Justice David thinks you have no right to resist unlawful police entry into your own home.  Yep, if J. Random Patrolman decides you look maleficent, whyn't he just invite himself in, with none of that fussing around with "probable cause" or "exigent circumstances," waking up judges -- besides, sometimes they do it already, and try to paper it over afterwards anyway.

     The Justice applied this reasoning to an actual decision, overturning centuries of common law and precedent, making a mess so big the Legislature had to jump in and fix it as best they could, outlining and codifying what had been commonly understood since Shakespeare was a pup.

     So we dodged that bullet, barely.  Let's not have to again on some other long-settled right.  Vote "NO" on retaining Justice Steven H. David.  He needs to go home.

     (Yes, I intend to hit this at least once a week until election day.  We don't need jackboot-polishers on the state's highest bench.)

11 comments:

Ed Rasimus said...

Barring an organized campaign against the judge, it is pretty hopeless. Voters don't know or care about the down-ballot. Most of the mouth-breathers headed to the polls next month don't even realize there will be all of those other choices.

Good luck though, because that sort of election is among the most important in state government.

Bear said...

I dunno. If you throw the bum out, he'll probably just go to work for the ATF Chief Counsel's Office (he sounds like an excellent fit). Less visible, more lethal.

Tam said...

Bear,

Anybody who evades a chance to fire a politician (not "suggest a replacement", but straight up say "YOU'RE FIRED") needs to turn in their wookie suit.

Bear said...

Here ya go...
http://www.makingwookie.co.uk/suit_C_002.jpg

Never wore it anyway, since I didn't advocate what you just implied (maybe you should stop holding the debates with the voices in your head).

farmist said...

I believe "maleficent" should have been "malfeasant". Although the first choice fits I believe it is too limiting.

Fuzzy Curmudgeon said...

Bear,

I quote:

"If you throw the bum out, he'll probably just go to work for the ATF Chief Counsel's Office (he sounds like an excellent fit). Less visible, more lethal."

I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I can read and understand the English language. And that sure read like you were advocating leaving him in place on the principle he'd do more damage somewhere else if we tossed him.

Tam said...

Bear,

I'm beginning to get a handle on your checkered employment history. That book by the Carnegie guy? You weren't supposed to eat it.

FFS, you make me look fuzzy, charming, and convivial...

I understand very well that when you're right all the time it makes it hard to put up with all the wrong people around you, but some of us have apparently learned to fake it better than others. ;)

Roberta X said...

Mommy drinks because you kids fight.

I believe Bear expressed doubt, not conviction. I could be wrong.

Farmist: I believe malefactors quite often look maleficent while committing acts of malfeasance; unfortunately, people who are merely having a crappy morning (or evening) often look maleficent, too, that being approximately my point, or perhaps the bit leading up to the pointy end, where Officer Friendly pops the lock to discover the suspected evil-doer gulping down an evil Vitamin B tab with an evil glass of raw egg, tomato juice and evil Worcestershire sauce; pity he took it for a gun, but it's nothing Boraxo won't wash off the linoleum.

Greg Tag said...

The reasoning by the judge was apparently that "agents of the state" have a greater right to go where they wish to prevent crime.

The overiding principal behind the requiring of a WARRANT is that "agents of the state" have no more right to enter my house than does Jim Bob Schlabotnik unless they ask a judges permission - this is a check on the power of the agents of the state. My check on Jim-Bobs entering my castle is force of arms. Absent a warrant the cop is no more entitled to cross my threshold uninvited than Jim-Bob.

What the judge here has done is s that the cop is special, if he comes unbidden and illegally he is NOT to be treated as Jim-Bob home invader.

Damn - what would the Founders say to THIS notion?

Mr. Justice xxx shoud lose his job; he should also be barred from legal practice because he clearly has no respect for liberty, American civil rights , the Constitution or the Common Law.

My 2 cents from here in Texas.

Regards

GKT

Roberta X said...

Possibly he has done worse, as his reasoning included the claim that one could always sue later -- just as good as not having one's door kicked in, in his view.

markm said...

And if you did sue later, he'd rule that the cop was protected by qualified immunity.