APPOINTMENTS COULD TILT COURT AWAY FROM CITIZENS

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for
the government/police to stop automobiles and subject them to a
search by drug-detecting dogs, without any reason for suspicion. The
six justices who voted for the rights of the citizens believe the
Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches means what
it says, and that it is unreasonable to subject a citizen to a search
without cause.

The three justices who voted against individual rights and for more
government/police power were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. The "crime" in this case
was not even a crime against person or property, but only a
victimless crime instituted by the government. But these three
justices have such little regard for the Bill of Rights that they
were ready to discard it in order to increase the power of the
government and its enforcement arm, the police.

During the recent presidential campaign, George W. Bush was asked
about Supreme Court appointments. He cited Scalia and Thomas as
justices he admired, and implied that he would appoint more in that
mold. Consequently, after President Bush's first two appointments to
the Supreme Court, that 6-3 majority in favor of the Constitution and
citizens could very easily become a 5-4 majority in favor of the
government/police.

Unfortunately for us, because Supreme Court justices are appointed
for life, it may take a generation to restore the court to one that
respects for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.