We're the Only Ones Who Don't Need No Stinking Warrants Enough

In a 3-0 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the police were justified in conducting the warrantless search and seizure in an era of unprecedented domestic carnage at schools, workplaces and shopping malls.

“Police, then, simply must be entitled to take effective preventive action when evidence surfaces of an individual who intends slaughter,” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote for the panel. “Respecting the rights of individuals has never required running a risk of mass death.”

Define "risk," Jim, I mean, J. Harvie. Because I gotta tell ya, the risk of an activist judiciary subverting the Constitution in general and the Bill of Rights in particular--all in the name of expedience--scares the hell out of me a lot more than some guy who voluntarily calls a hotline and lets everybody know where he is.

If someone is an immediate threat, there's nothing in the law prohibiting an intervention, and nothing to make crime scene evidence inadmissible. But simultaneously with the threat being neutralized, perhaps you could explain why requiring "The Only Ones" to swear out an affidavit and obtain a warrant in accordance with the clear probable cause mandate you are required to abide by (or would be in the Constitutional Republic envisioned by the Framers) is such a burden on the state...? Aside from maybe having to drag some judge's hind end out of bed at 3:00 AM on occasion...?

Originally nominated by Reagan, eh? Considered for SCOTUS by the "Vote Freedom First President" (until you opened your self-important yap to The New York Times)?

And you consider yourself a "Hands-Off Constitution[alist]"? And getting judges like you appointed is the reason we're supposed to be cowed into voting republican?

[Via Mack]