[Kazan]

Do you even know how the GOP got to this place? Who put the Liberal Judges in? Who did not put up a fight on Obama nominees or even "W"s pathetic ones like Roberts?

You're out of touch with reality. All five of the Reagan appointees ARE INFINITELY more conservative than Democratic nominees. Roberts and Kennedy are the only thing keeping the Second Amendment as we know it alive. Those five struck down the contraceptive mandate. They struck down the bubble zone law against abortion protesters.

One more liberal judge to replace either and it won't matter what conservatives do legislative.

[OneWingedShark]

>> Do you even know how the GOP got to this place? Who put the Liberal Judges in? Who did not put up a fight on Obama nominees or even "W"s pathetic ones like Roberts?
>
> You're out of touch with reality. All five of the Reagan appointees ARE INFINITELY more conservative than Democratic nominees.

That you consider statists willing to twist logic into nothingness to get the Constsitution to say what they want as "conservative" at all is quite telling.
Here's Alito admitting the 4th exists, and implicitly that warrants are required for searches, only to be shat upon a few paragraphs later:

The Fourth Amendment provides:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The text of the Amendment thus expressly imposes two requirements. First, all searches and seizures must be reasonable. Second, a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity.

[…]we have often said, “‘that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.’”[…]

But we have also recognized that this presumption may be overcome in some circumstances because “[t]he ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness.’[…]Accordingly, the warrant requirement is subject to certain reasonable exceptions.

Get that?
It's saying the fourth amendment makes demands, one of which is that searches must have a warrant, the other that they are reasonable and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable but this unqualified requirement is subject to certain reasonable exceptions.

He's talking out of both sides of his mouth to justify the unjustifiable!
Just like Schenck declaring that despite the 1st amendment's unqualified prohibition on congress making a law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press they certainly could during wartime.
And you're talking about how conservative he is? Ridiculous!