THE COURT GOT IT RIGHT

The Supreme Court got it right this week in striking down police roadblocks
set up to catch drug-law violations. In its 6-to-3 ruling, the court held
that such roadblocks violate the privacy rights of innocent wayfarers. The
court held that the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable search
and seizure still has some meaning.

It was a piece of good news that shouldn't be overshadowed by the story of
the presidential election-that-never-ends.

Maybe this ruling will be a step away from our descent into governmental
lawlessness under the guise of prosecuting a so-called war on drugs, more
correctly known as a price-support program for drug cartels and corrupt
officials who get rich from the drug traffic. We can disagree about what
the drug laws ought to be. In our view, drugs such as cocaine and heroin
are bad business. People ought not to abuse themselves with drugs. In a
perfect world, no one would.

But this is an imperfect world, and we ought not to let our loathing of
drugs blind us to the consequences of misguided actions. In the name of
fighting drugs, we have gone a long way toward creating Police State
America. An America where even the innocent have come to fear the sight of
blue lights flashing and police cars clustered at checkpoints on our highways.

This week's Supreme Court ruling is a welcome counterpoint to the trend,
although it didn't go far enough.

One big disappointment was that the court's three principal conservatives
voted in the minority. Their votes are another reminder that we ought to
stop using the labels "liberal" and "conservative." They have come to mean
nothing. What is "conservative" about voting for state power against
individual freedom? And isn't it interesting how often our supposedly
conservative justices find reasons to vote that way?

To his credit, Justice Clarence Thomas expressed some doubts. A Reuters
story put it this way:

"Justice Clarence Thomas said the previous rulings on roadblocks to catch
drunk drivers and illegal immigrants compelled the upholding of the drug
checkpoints.

"But Thomas questioned whether the prior rulings should be overturned. He
said he doubted whether the authors of the Constitution considered
'reasonable' a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected
of wrongdoing."

Justice Thomas should have voted with the Constitution's authors.