Thursday, January 22, 2009

Exclusionary rule

Interesting news on developments in the exclusionary rule.

Reading stuff like this makes me want to drop everything and go learn my Gemara (see, there is a misnaged in all of us).

5 comments:

DixieYid (جنوب يهودي) said...

I just read the full opinion in this class a few days ago because we're covering the Exclusionary Rule in our Criminal Procedure Course. It's interesting and even though it was a narrow majority (along traditional right/left lines), I like the majorities opinion. It's a clear application of the rule in an earlier Supreme Court case with almost the same facts. It's astounding that despite all of the liberal justice's reverence for starei decisus when it comes to pro-abortion precedent, they would ignore their own precedent from 12 years earlier when they want to push a liberal agenda. Unbelievable. And they didn't even address the issue in the dissent!

-Dixie Yid

Crawling Axe said...

I think liberals see the way government and society should operate and function differently.

In general, I am deeply disturbed by the whole utilitarian approach to law and justice (if A violates rights of B, as long as it’s for a worthy cause — in a long term — it’s all good), but that’s a long story.

shmulie said...

Axe, re: liberals: You bet. I think Tom Sowell has it formulated best in "The Conflict of Visions". Even Stephen Pinker Agrees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Conflict_of_Visions

Don't know Sowell? Know. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200 until you do.

LE7 said...

I should have known if was you, how many commentators read Tom Sowell?

shmulie said...

Left it lying around, did I? I just can't resist. The man has the clearest mind and sharpest insight I've found today.