knock knock, no longer necessary

Perhaps the first case where O'Connor's absence definitely changed a Supreme Court decision. By 5-4 (with Roberts and Alito on the winning side), the Supremes said cops can use evidence obtained in searches following illegal "no-knock" entries. So, with the stroke of a pen (keyboard?), there goes one more constitutional protection for the citizen against the state, compliments of the conservative Republican Party.

I'm sure this won't bother you because you won't ever do anything illegal, right? Or never even be thought to have done anything illegal? Nor anybody in your family? No theft, drug cartels, right? No incorrect political thoughts or suspicious lack of support for the regime, right? Those aren't crimes, you say? Maybe not for now. We've all been warned by Ashcroft and Ari Fleischer and others in the de facto Bush Administration that we have to be very careful how we think and act lest we lend aid and comfort to the enemy...

Our benevolent leaders have already demonstrated a willingness to lock up even American citizens for a long time without a trial just on suspicions. So don't worry your little head about it, and go back to watching "American Idol" and reruns of "CSI", but be careful about web sites you visit and people you telephone lest it provoke a visit to your home by cops that may not even feel the need to knock any more.

This is not a "conservative" judicial decision, but an "authoritarian" one. This is a decision that overturns centuries of common-law precedent. This is a radical decision, and a clear case of judicial activism. But authoritarian Republicans are fine with judicial activism when it moves the law the way THEY want it to go. Libertarian Republicans, big-business Republicans, this is the cohort you have allied with. Congratulations.