[Celtjew Libertarian]

From Bloomberg.com: Joining Justice John Paul Stevens's majority decision were Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote separately to say he agreed with the result, though not the majority's reasoning.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas dissented.

O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas -- 3 of the 4 most conservatives dissented.... And Scalia didn't like the reasoning behind the decision.

[kjam22]

Thanks for that info. I'm glad I didn't bet the house on it.

[NeoCaveman]

O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas -- 3 of the 4 most conservatives dissented.... And Scalia didn't like the reasoning behind the decision.

Well atleast 3 judges didn't go for that ridiculous commerce clause abuse that we've had for 2 generations now.

[newgeezer]

Yet another reason to lament Rehnquist's imminent departure (surely to be replaced by a 'moderate').

[hobbes1]

However, the point about Scalia, for all of his textualism, He likes Police Power.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Looks like Scalia is protecting his shot at Chief Injustice by sucking up to the administration.

Their reasoning is witless, but they are right anyway.

Way to roll over, Scalia.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas -- 3 of the 4 most conservatives dissented.... And Scalia didn't like the reasoning behind the decision.

I would've bet money that Thomas would be among the dissenters, but Rehnquist? Did not some of his decisions in the early days of the Drug War reduce the 4th Amendment to ashes? Perhaps he's repenting now that he sees his days are numbered . . .

[wardaddy]

Well...that is encouraging to a degree.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote separately to say he agreed with the result, though not the majority's reasoning.

Scalia has always been an outcome-based rather than a legal-procedure-based justice.