Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mishedlo who wrote (48522)	3/22/2006 9:42:28 PM
From: CalculatedRisk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Supreme Court rules correctly ... news.yahoo.com The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot search a home when one resident invites them in but another tells them to go away, provoking a strong objection from the new chief justice about the possible impact on battered women. The 5-3 decision put new limits on officers who want to search for evidence of a crime without obtaining a warrant first. If one occupant tells them no, the search is unconstitutional, justices said. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote his first dissent, predicting severe consequences for women who want police to come in but are overruled by abusive husbands. MY COMMENT: Only nutcases Roberts, Thomas and Scalia (Alito wasn't on the court when the case was heard) ruled for illegal searches. This is an obvious ruling ... the police could easily obtain a search warrant, so there is no need for Roberts' concern. Souter correctly called Roberts' concerns about domestic violence a "red herring."