I posted a few days ago about the drooling morons in SCOTUS who've decided that we haven't lost enough Democracy and decided to allow admission in court of evidence obtained in illegal police searches.

Because that pesky fourth amendment does protect Americans from illegal search and seizure. . .. oh wait . . .

Huff Po has a great post by Robert J. Elisberg on the subject.

"I am a believer in the method called originalism," said Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in a speech on October, 2004, "which, in a nutshell, says that you look at the text of the Constitution… and you give the text the meaning it had when it was adopted."The whimsy of his placing this view in an appropriate "nutshell" aside, it appears now that Justice Scalia's method is less "originalism" than it is self-interest.

Sorry, "self-interestism."

Last week, Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in the 5-4 decision, Hudson v. Michigan. The ruling allows that evidence found in an illegal police search is admissible in court. (Cries of "Holy Mother of God!!!!" may now begin.) Police no longer need to wait after announcing themselves before rushing into someone's home. The one saving grace is that a warrant must still be obtained – it just doesn't have to be used legally.

 As comedienne Anna Russell said in a famous routine, "I'm not making this up, you know!" In his decision, Scalia notes that the accused may still sue the police for the illegal search. Oh, okay, sure, that illegally-seized evidence probably put the person away, but the good news is, he may enjoy the court judgment upon release from prison in 15-20 years.

However one reacts to this ruling, the issue here is that while Justice Scalia likes to puff himself an "originalist," the reality is that this decision not only reverses the Bill of Rights, prohibiting unreasonable searches, but also English common law and the doctrine of "knock and announce," which for eight centuries has mandated that police must identify themselves and wait a reasonable time before entering someone's home.

Apparently, to Justice Scalia, "originalism" really means coming up with something original."

I asked: What happens when the cops burst into someone's home (hoping they have the right address) – with the blessing of the new dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks SCOTUS – and meet the business end of the civilian firearm?

Well, I found an answer. VIA Crooked Timber:

"The guts of it is that Cory Maye is a black man on death row for shooting a white police officer dead. The officer was part of a paramilitary no-knock drug raid which broke down the door of Maye’s apartment at 11:30pm, when he and his young daughter were sleeping.The building was a duplex and the officers had a warrant for Jamie Smith, the person who lived in the other half, and for “occupants unknown” in Maye’s half. It’s not clear that the officers expected anyone to be in that half of the duplex.

There’s no evidence that Maye had anything to do with Smith, and Maye did not have a criminal record.

When the officers broke in, Maye woke up, took his gun and ran to his daughter’s room. When Officer Ron Jones entered the room, Maye shot him. Jones later died.

There is disagreement about whether the officers announced they were the police as they broke in, and what the exact sequence of events was once they were in there. (I don’t think it’s in dispute that Maye really had no reason to expect the police would come breaking down his door at midnight.)

Jones was (1) first into the apartment but (2) not part of the SWAT team—he was invited along because he tipped off the Narcotics Task Force about the suspected dealer in the other half of the duplex. He was also (3) the son of a local police chief.

Mayes was tried, apparently was not well-represented, and was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death."

So much for "Innocent, good people have nothing to worry about."

Let's say it's the middle of the night, and someone (which may or may not be police) bursts into your home. These are the choices you have:

1. Arm yourself and, if you kill one, be sent to death row

2. Do nothing and hope that the people bursting in are actually the cops and not just criminals hoping to steal your crap and rape your family.

What's next? Do we get rid of that pesky Right To Bear Arms amendment to protect the illegally invading police? (Oh wait, that's legal now).

This forces me to ask, once again. Why do conservatives hate freedom, logic, sanity, decency and intelligence so much?