[microgood]

Even Scalia has had some activist decisions. The most recent that comes to mind is the no-knock warrant one where he cited that we down't have to worry about cops because they are well trained now and respect our rights(boy are they ever out of touch with reality there) or the sobriety checkpoint one where they ruled that it did violate the 4th Amendment but that is is OK to do so because we have to do something about drunken driving.

He even ruled once that a dog searching around the outside of a car was not a search of the car, taxing logic itself to its limits.

Scalia can be an activist but hides under this strict constitutionalist mantra.

[antiRepublicrat]

Scalia doesn’t seem to mind giving some wiggle room in the Constitution when it comes to the power of the federal government, but when a state wants to enforce its powers, or a person his rights, suddenly he (selectively) interprets it strictly. Just look at Gonzales v. Raich, where he completely ignored the ideas of state sovereignty and limited federal powers.

Thomas is, overall, becoming my favorite. And to think I didn’t like him at first.

[NCLaw441]

You said, in part: He even ruled once that a dog searching around the outside of a car was not a search of the car, taxing logic itself to its limits.
***
A dog sniffing outside of a car is simply detecting an odor that has escaped the car. If the odor remained inside the car, the dog would never smell it. I would say that this is akin to a policeman at the front door of a house, seeing blood oozing out the door. Seeing that blood is not a search of the house, but the sight of that blood might provide the probable cause to search.