The blizzard is definitely a force for conservatism, and not only because it has had the global-warming crowd scrambling for explanations. The blizzard reveals something basic: Liberals in government want to tell us what to eat, counsel us about how and when to die, and in general attempt to engineer our lives. But when reality knocks, they can’t do the basic stuff such as clearing the streets . . . Mayor Bloomberg may be receiving an unfair amount of criticism for his lackluster performance in coping with Mother Nature, given the almost unprecedented nature of the storm, but the unplowed city streets provide a metaphor for the nanny state: It can order us to do anything, but it can’t take care of the basic obligations of government.(via PowerLine)
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
QOTD
Charlotte Hayes on The Corner:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Unrelated except as it concerns just exactly what government _does_ think is it's job, but still a must read:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=176510
Sue K.: I think there's a Sixth Circuit decision to the contrary. I'll research it if I have time later this week.
Sue K.: Actually, the decision -- People v. Diaz, S166600 (Cal. Jan. 4, 2011) -- is the first of its sort, though it's not a huge leap beyond prior cases. Though I rarely agree with the left regarding the Fourth Amendment, I actually think those alarmed about this decision have a point.
I'll ponder some before I post--I don't think the dissent draws a sufficiently persuasive line distinguishing precedent.
I'm no legal expert. I guess I'd consider it in the category of a car or perhaps a briefcase in the possession of the arrested person.
If I'm pulled over for a traffic violation, can the police search my vehicle without a warrant for whatever even though they have no reason other than the traffic violation to stop me? If not, then maybe this falls into the same category. But what about my briefcase? Suppose they're arresting me for DUI, and upon searching my briefcase - without a warrant - they find evidence that I kept double books and defrauded my employer? Can they prosecute for the fraud if they have nothing further to base their prosecution upon?
It seems to me that this falls into the same category - that a cell phone these days is roughly in the same category as a briefcase - or perhaps a closet in a home. Or maybe a file cabinet in a home.
Post a Comment