Clipping quotes to use them out of context is intellectually dishonest.
Go back and reread James Otis. You’re desperately trying to distract from his point.
Consider this: you are a suspect in an investigation. Your wife gives the police the okay. You say “no.” on the grounds of no warrant.
You are handcuffed and held in back of a car while the search is conducted. Your wife is told to sit down and is watched by an officer while his partner goes to search. Officer safety must be assured after all.
Shockingly, evidence is “found” which demonstrates your “ clear” “guilt.” Your shocked and dismayed wife can’t believe this is happening to you. She protests your innocence. The police point to this case, informing your wife all has transpired legally.
It may be planted evidence, it may be “evidence” of a “crime” committed daily, unknowingly, due to the plethora of laws on the books.
But the damage is done.
Instead of protecting the family castle, the king is treated like a common criminal, and the queen realizes, too late, that the system she trusted has worked against them both.
It turns out, the royal pair *did* have good reason to decline the government rogues entry to their castle,
In all seriousness, if I were in your shoes, I would sit down with my wife and encourage her to make give a default answer “no”, should any such situation present itself.
If ever there is a time for husband and wife to work together in unity, this is it.
While you are considering the real and practical ramifications of what you are defending, show me where any of the Founders ever said that government employees could enter a free oerson’s house despite the refusal of an occupant.
A conservative justice who opens the door for more government overreach and abuse is worse than his liberal counterpart, and should not be defended on the grounds that he made a statist ruling.
Telling people not to be alarmed when a conservative makes a statist ruling is dishonest and cheapens the meaning of “conservative.”
“You’re desperately trying to distract from his point.”
You are. His point was that a general warrant, good for years and everywhere, is unjust. It also has NOTHING to do with this decision.
“Instead of protecting the family castle, the king is treated like a common criminal, and the queen realizes, too late, that the system she trusted has worked against them both.”
Still, if the Queen gives the government permission to enter the castle, it is legal. Why would it not be? When has it ever been illegal for a wife to give entry to property?
“If ever there is a time for husband and wife to work together in unity, this is it.”
Well then...in this case, maybe the thief shouldn’t also beat his wife. Maybe the wife would be more willing to protect her criminal husband - and the guy was a thief - if he did not also beat her.
But if you live with someone, they have the right to invite others onto the property they share. Anything else takes away from THEIR rights. A woman should not need written permission from her husband to allow someone on their property.
It is amazing so many Freepers are eager to join with Ginsberg & Kagen and oppose Thomas and Scalia! Talk about idiots trying to join up with evil!