[Drew68]

STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA, SOUTER, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, J., joined, and in which BREYER, J., joined except as to Part II–E.

Interesting 5-4 split.

[conservative cat]

Quite interesting split.

[Still Thinking]

Scalia not only voted for the people and against the cops but had a line of reasoning he found sufficiently compelling that he wrote a separate concurrence! There is hope for the man! I’ve read decisions he wrote where the result seemed to be justified by “But what if the cops don’t like it?”. I say too bad. The Constitution says the same thing it said the day before any individual made the decision to enter LE. So if they’re doing something repugnant to the Constitution, the proper question to ask is “But what if the Constitution doesn’t like it?”

[SuperLuminal]

"STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA, SOUTER, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, J., joined, and in which BREYER, J., joined except as to Part II–E."

Glad to see this ruling...

Here's one ruling that I really need to read the opinions for and against. How often is it, in the past several decades, that, beforehand, we pretty much do not know which side of the issue each Justice will stand based on the ideological nature of the decision?

Now let's get rid of the worst weapon frequently used against regular non-criminal citizens...RICO

[Richard Kimball]

No kidding. Very odd split. I find I’m almost always on the same side as Thomas. True in this case, too, and I agreed with his contention in his dissenting opinion that anonymous speech was also protected speech in the earlier decision.