Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Credit: Justin Sullivan
The Supreme Court issued an extraordinarily disappointing 5–3 decision on Monday in Utah v. Strieff, a Fourth Amendment case about police searches. Yet the terrible ruling came with a bright spot: In a powerful and groundbreaking dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor lambasted the majority for its heartless and illogical rejection of Fourth Amendment freedoms, invoking the Justice Department’s Ferguson report, echoing Black Lives Matter, and even citing Ta-Nehisi Coates.
Strieff itself involves a fairly simple question of constitutional law. Typically, when police illegally stop an individual on the street without reasonable suspicion, any fruits of that stop—such as the discovery of illegal drugs—must be suppressed in court, because the stop was “unreasonable seizure” under the Fourth Amendment. Strieff gave the justices an opportunity to affirm this constitutional rule. But instead, Justice Stephen Breyer joined the court’s four conservatives to add a huge loophole to that long-established doctrine. In an opinion by Justice […]
The Supreme Court is the supreme arbiter of the Constitution. A careful reading of the document, and its structure confirms that. Bravo Justice Sonia Sotomayor. John Roberst’s on the other hand emphasized stare decisis (sticking with precedent) to be confirmed, That latin term is not found in the constitution. At all. Than he leads in the precedent breaking People’s United (sic) decision
I do not know how to displace a sitting justice that is not in fidelity with the constitution, but 20 million veterans swore to defend the thing against enemies, foreign and domestic.
I vowed to defend the thing. So did all our federal officials including justice Roberts. ” The right of the people to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure shall not be violated.” That is English. the language, as Senator Sam Ervin said, “It is my mother tongue.” If that were enacted law……. would we have a Black Lives Matter movement?
What about a public shaming? The rationale of Sotomayor … and the constitution is crystal.
The We the People part also needs enactment.
Brilliantly expressed, David Bean. Thank you! It seems to me we’re at a critical point that places the ‘We the people enactment’ under an unforgiving, all revealing light. Who will stand with integrity and speak from their conscience. Their heart!
For too long, too many have neglected to vote and or speak out. And one wonders at times why they continue to believe they should continue to be afforded citizenship. In part I believe their willful neglect is due to an excess of belief in ‘entitlement’. Something too too many unthinkingly, greedily assume. In that humans, in my mind, are imperfectly perfect and thus, I tend to be more forgiving than most, I’m deeply saddened and angry by the tattered United States of America. That said, Sotomayor’s brilliant ‘coming out’ renews my faith in what might be – in the court and with the greater population. I believe we’re gaining momentum in many areas. The press tends to ignore the life affirming changes occurring, because to air them would energize them. I’m not a cock-eyed optimist. In fact, I prefer the term intelligent optimist and as such my focus is directed toward the momentum that’s demanding and imbuing many new voices who speak with courage and compassion.
And thank you for posting this article on your site, Stephan. Your work is a great importance.