>Dennis Perrin made the ridiculous statement that "the All Evil Justice
>Scalia is perhaps the sturdiest defender of Fourth Amendment rights now
>sitting on the bench."
>
>No sooner uttered than contradicted in the most spectacular way by
>yesterday's decision on random roadblocks to use drug sniffing dogs to
>arrest folks with drugs in their cars. The Supreme Court actually ruled the
>right way on this one, 6-3.
>
>And who were the three dissenters, upholding the right to stop any car for
>no purpose other than to sniff for drugs?
>Rehnquist, Thomas and yes Scalia. The All Evil Scalia stepped up to bat
>for the forces of fascism.
>
>This bizarre tendency by some leftists to celebrate a few rightwing pundits
>who come out correctly on issues, while ignoring the roughly one-third to
>one-half of elected Democrats who struggle every day for every issue we care
>about, is sometimes completely incomprehensible to me. You don't have to
>agree with their strategy of working within the Democratic Party, but to
>deny their existence while praising fascists like Scalia just leaves me
>speechless. I don't full understand the political and psychological reasons
>for this phenomenon, but it is truly bizarre and distressing.
>
>-- Nathan Newman
>
Well. I didn't see that decision, and I thank Nathan for bringing this to my attention. If this is the case that dealt with the Indiana State Police, then I too am speechless, for Scalia made very convincing noises that he was against these measures, using terms like "police state." He has said the same thing in other cases as well, and has cited the Fourth Amendment. Perhaps I didn't get the irony. Perhaps he smiled when he used these words. In any event, a despicable vote.
Nonetheless, there are many conservatives who have come out against these measures. I've named a few in earlier posts. I could add Bob Barr, who fought against roving wiretaps when Clinton/Gore pushed for them last year. Now, maybe he too is pulling all our legs. But given the absolute insanity of the Drug War, fully supported by most major Dems (Jesse Jackson has long been against legalizing "poison" as he put it; has he changed?), why should we ignore those who say they are for stopping it? I despise William F. Buckley, and disagree with pretty much everything Richard Brookhiser stands for. But both are for ending the Drug War, at least at its current level. Following Nathan's advice, we should tell them to fuck off simply because they are so bad on most other issues. I disagree.
I'm willing to take my lumps for citing Scalia (you've blown it with me Tony). But what is Nathan's position on those Dems who are all-out pro-War? Those who favor increased military "aid" to Colombia to "fight" drugs? Those who support more police kicking down the doors of the poor and disenfranchised? Those who favor drug-testing as a condition for work? If what he says is true, that "roughly one-third to one-half of elected Democrats" are against this policy, then where are their voices? What are their names? I know the names Clinton, Gore and Lieberman aren't among them -- especially Clinton, a man who turned in his own brother to the cops! Something tells me that Nathan doesn't find Clinton's behavior fascistic, or at the very least "distressing."
DP