- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
You're right, an illegal search is an illegal search. Doesn't really matter what they find because it was illegal. Let's say you know a guy's a rapist but can't prove it. You break into his house and find panties of the victim with his semen on it. Guess what, you can't use that as evidence now and the rapist goes free. Same concept here. Illegal searches help nobody because you have to break the law in the first place.
Second, as for "finding a gun" I'm gonna throw up a straw-man because it seems like the thing to do here and I feel like it would be a wasted opportunity not to. "Blah blah blah, 2nd Amendment, blah blah blah, right to bear arms... what if she shot a guy who was trying to rape a child with her illegal gun... hypothetical hypothetical blah blah blah.
They didn't say that it's always an illegal search.
So....he casts a dissenting vote away from Scalia occassionally....so what?
So your claim that he blindly follows Scalia is essentially ****. He doesn't vote with Scalia (or, more accurately, Scalia doesn't vote with him) any more than Alito votes with Roberts or Stevens votes with Breyer.
The man hasn't authored a single opinion of significance in the decades that he has been on the court.
Just off the top of my head:
GOOD NEWS CLUB V. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-130.ZO.html
Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994).
14 PENN PLAZA LLC v. PYETT
And that's only of his opinions. He's at his best when he's concurring or dissenting to make a point.
I'm sure that if I bothered to go through this list, I'd find plenty more:
Supreme Court Collection: Opinions by Justice Thomas
He is well known for not engaging in questioning during hearings, despite the fact that he may have done so on a couple of ocassions.
What does this have to do with anything? Please don't tell me that you view one's level of interaction at oral arguments as indicative of anything beyond the desire to hear oneself speak.
I work in the legal profession....I read Supreme Court opinions daily......so your criticism that somehow I haven't studied Thomas and know what I am talking about is unfounded.
Then why is it that you can't offer a remotely cogent criticism of him, and instead resort to the overplayed and completely uninformed "he just follows scalia, he doesn't talk, he's dumb, etc."?