# Alito and the nuclear option: Is he an "extremist"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 31, 2005, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778 "2005-10-31T20:34:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/61 "2005-11-01T21:48:22Z")
Somehow, I’m not terribly surprised that this discussion has veered from a discussion of Alito’s opinions to a discussion of his opponent’s motivations. But for the sake of pissing in the wind, let me state for the record that the “strip-searching” case to which **Evil Captor** refers does bother me, a hell of a lot, and yes I have read the opinion thank you. Alito said, to paraphrase, “No the warrant didn’t include the persons of the mother and child who were strip searched, but that’s okay because we can reasonably assume the magistrate who signed the warrant knew that the police intended to search them if necessary.” Got that? According to Alito, warrants mean what judges like him think that the judges who signed them meant, _after the fact_. Kneecapping the 4th Amendment is what I consider an “extreme position”. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/62 "2005-11-01T22:01:02Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I can be a little clearer than that. The cops had a warrant to raid the house because they believed drugs were there. They found a woman and her ten-year-old daughter when they raided they place. The warrant said nothing about strip-searching the woman and the ten-year-old duaghter. But the cops did it anyway. Alito said it was fine that they should do so even if they didn’t have a warrant and as your quote indicated, Alito cried a few judicial crocodile tears in the text of his decision, but basically said it was OK. And I’m not the only one who disagreed with Alito … the other two judges on the appeals court did … his was a dissenting vote in a decision that found in favor of the victims of the search. Alito just feels that if cops got a warrant they can do anything. Call that a technicality? > [@Orbifold](#): > > But for the sake of pissing in the wind, let me state for the record that the “strip-searching” case to which Evil Captor refers does bother me, a hell of a lot, and yes I have read the opinion thank you. > > Alito said, to paraphrase, “No the warrant didn’t include the persons of the mother and child who were strip searched, but that’s okay because we can reasonably assume the magistrate who signed the warrant knew that the police intended to search them if necessary.” This issue comes down to the fact that affidavite attached to the warrent did reference the need to search others in the household, and whether or not the cops REASONABLY could have expected that the warrant gave them that authority. That was the issue. I may very well have ruled with the majority on this case, but Alito’s decision wasn’t pulled out of thin air, nor was it unsupported by precedent. I think it’s unreasonable to expect that you would agree with every ruling of a judge in order to endorse him. We don’t know how the SCOTUS would have ruled in this case, since it didn’t go further. But, let’s look at his opinion in \*Casey \*(the spousal notification of abortion case), which is often cited as an “extreme” position. Four sitting SCOTUS justices agreed with Alito. Saying that his opinion makes him an extremist is absurd, in light of that fact. If, OTOH, he had a fari numnber of decisions that had been overuled by a unanimous (or near unanimous) SC, then we might reasonable consider him an extremist. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/63 "2005-11-01T22:16:17Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > This issue comes down to the fact that affidavite attached to the warrent did reference the need to search others in the household, and whether or not the cops REASONABLY could have expected that the warrant gave them that authority. That was the issue. So the text of the warrant means nothing, then? The warrant only means what the cops can reasonably expect it to mean? > [@](#): > > I may very well have ruled with the majority on this case, but Alito’s decision wasn’t pulled out of thin air, nor was it unsupported by precedent. To quote from Alito’s own words in the dissent: > [@](#): > > The only reasonable inference is that the magistrate > agreed with the affidavit that there was > probable cause to search all occupants of > the premises and that the magistrate > intended to authorize such a search. The > magistrate must have understood that the > officers, who had drafted the warrant, > believed that the warrant, if signed, would > give them authorization to carry out a > search of the scope specified in the > application, viz., a search of “all > occupants.” As a result, the magistrate > surely would not have signed the warrant > without modification if the magistrate had > not wished to confer that authority. > question that the warrant authorized a > search of all occupants of the premises. He is literally reading the mind of the magistrate after the fact to try and argue that the warrant meant something other than what it actually said! He cites _United States v. Ventresca_ which says that warrants are to be read “in a commonsense and realistic fashion” and then does rhetorical backflips for two pages to conclude that “commensense” means “reading things that aren’t there”, all because that’s what the police must have really meant and the actual text of the warrant be damned! It’s not a matter of me not agreeing with every ruling of Alito’s. It’s a matter of me realizing that Alito has no trouble bending over backwards to stick a knife in the ribs of the 4th amendment…you know, the one that says “and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, **and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized** ”. Ignoring the text of the warrant in favour of what he supposes _after the fact_ that the police and magistrate actually meant: _that’s_ an extreme position. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/64 "2005-11-01T22:20:59Z")
**jshore** ’s article in post #52 is very interesting. The NY Times has no idea what judicial activism is! (Or maybe they’re trying to change the definition?) Overturning the congress is the job of a judge. If congress passes an unconstitutional law, then it’s their duty to overturn it. It’s the job of the court to act as a break pedal for the congress overstepping it’s authority. It doesn’t surprise me a bit that conservative judges overturn congress more often. They tend to be better judges! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/65 "2005-11-01T22:46:54Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Here’s an example. Your first cite claims that “ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES.” Bullshit. Alito does nothing of the sort. He argued that the strip search in question was in fact authorized by the original warrant and the fact that law enforcement officials are given wide latitude in Fourth Amendment cases because of prior Supreme Court cases granting them broad immunity in their jobs. > > It should be noted here that this wasn’t an evidentiary question. The cops in question had raided a meth house and searched the occupants, and for their trouble got sued by the nice people who ran the place. > > Far from rejoicing in these searches, as some would portray it, Judge Alito clearly is disgusted by them. Yet his disgust clearly is motivated by the criminal types who would place children in a meth house in the first place. Can’t say I blame him. > There’s my cite. It is the decision itself, not some spin by a group of hacks. Perhaps you can find some of these yourself, and we can have a real discusssion with some real and genuine facts. Guess what… I agree with you on something. I served on a jury to put one of these crank dealer types in jail. I share yours and Alito’s disgust with the sort of people who make and distribute, and who don’t care about ther well being of any children unfortunate enough to have to live there. As it stands now - Alito has experience as a judge. He has the training (obviously). He has a paper trail of opinions and rulings that we can actually see (as opposed to “trust me” Miers). He is qualified. I looked at some anti-Alito sites, and they looked to me like “attack editorials”, based on my very cursory first glance. If he rules according to what The Law says, and what The Constitution says, then that’s ALL we should expect or ask. If he goes into “penumbra mode” and makes overbroad decisions based on his own personal ouija board, then he will be overstepping his bounds. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/66 "2005-11-02T00:01:44Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > He is literally reading the mind of the magistrate after the fact to try and argue that the warrant meant something other than what it actually said! He cites _United States v. Ventresca_ which says that warrants are to be read “in a commonsense and realistic fashion” and then does rhetorical backflips for two pages to conclude that “commensense” means “reading things that aren’t there”, all because that’s what the police must have really meant and the actual text of the warrant be damned! > > It’s not a matter of me not agreeing with every ruling of Alito’s. It’s a matter of me realizing that Alito has no trouble bending over backwards to stick a knife in the ribs of the 4th amendment…you know, the one that says “and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, **and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized** ”. Ignoring the text of the warrant in favour of what he supposes _after the fact_ that the police and magistrate actually meant: _that’s_ an extreme position. You’d be right if there was absolutely no reference to other occupants. But that’s not the case. The affidavit, which is referenced on the warrant, specifies other people on the premises. In fact, the officers note that there simply wasn’t room on the form to list other names, which is why the noted that 3 separate times on the affidavit. Why do you consistently ignore that part-- because you didn’t read it, or because it doesn’t support your cause? Like I said, I might disagree with this particular ruling, but there is no attempt at mind reading, as you claim, and there is no attempt undermine the 4th amendment. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/67 "2005-11-02T00:05:38Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > That’s nice, but since I do not accept the new definition of “judicial activism” as “a propensity to overturn laws”, it is not particularly relevant to my point. > > Regards, > Shodan > [@Debaser](#): > > jshore’s article in post #52 is very interesting. The NY Times has no idea what judicial activism is! (Or maybe they’re trying to change the definition?) > > Overturning the congress is the job of a judge. If congress passes an unconstitutional law, then it’s their duty to overturn it. It’s the job of the court to act as a break pedal for the congress overstepping it’s authority. It doesn’t surprise me a bit that conservative judges overturn congress more often. They tend to be better judges! Here is what Phyllis Schafly had to say in a column about “judicial activism”: > [@](#): > > Activist judges have been advancing a liberal agenda that opposes religious values, conventional morality, the separation of powers, our structure of federalism, and even the right of American citizens to govern ourselves. The federal courts have been replacing our constitutional system with what we call the Imperial Judiciary. > > … > > **"All" legislative powers are vested in the Congress** , according to the U.S. Constitution. That means no legislative power is granted to the courts. Yet, over the past 50 years, judges have become increasingly activist, writing their own ideas and attitudes into the law. > > Some of our most far-reaching social, economic and political decisions have been made by judges rather than by our elected representatives. These include decisions about criminal procedures, prayer and the Ten Commandments in public schools, internal security, pornography, forced busing, racial preferences and quotas, term limits, abortion, and election procedures. > > The federal courts have invented new “rights” such as the right to abortion and welfare payments. The federal courts have arbitrarily overturned the votes of the people in California, Colorado, Arizona and Washington State who had the old-fashioned belief that they could exercise self-government. The federal courts have set themselves up as a super-legislature and grabbed authority to micromanage schools, prisons, hiring standards, and legislative reapportionment. And so forth. This has been the general tone of the conservative argument, i.e., that liberal judges overturn the Democratic decisions of the legislature on the basis of some vague Constitutional right. However, what that study shows is that in fact the more conservative judges are striking down acts by Congress more often than the liberals. Thus, it seems like the conservatives are fine and dandy with the democratic will of the people being overruled provided they happen to agree with the decision! Now, you might come back and try to argue why you think that it is somehow less activist to vote to overturn more of the laws of Congress on the cases that have reached the Supreme Court. So, have at it. Otherwise, it seems like “activist” is a synonym for judges ruling the way you happen not to like. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/68 "2005-11-02T00:08:38Z")
Sorry, I forgot to give the [cite](http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2002/oct02/psroct02.shtml) for the Phyllis Schlafly screed. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/69 "2005-11-02T00:13:42Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Here is what Phyllis Schafly had to say in a column about “judicial activism”: Far be it from me to defend Schafly, and I don’t know that I’d agree with her interpretation of “judicial activism”, but you might note that most of her examples are instances of state law overturned by Federal Judges. As I noted in the other thread. one would expect non-activist federal judges to overturn more federal than state laws, since the federal constitution places much more constraint on Congress than it does on the States. That’s the key that I think you are missing. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/70 "2005-11-02T00:16:51Z")
Well, now, there is that word “particularly”, meaning, as I understand it, a specific and discrete entity or entities. “Joseph Blow, Jesse Blow, little Joe Jr.” is specfic, “whoever happens to be there when we get there” is not. And this stuff about the affidavit. Does that really matter? Does the warrant say “whoever is named in the affidavit”? Or is the affidavity intended to inform that issuer of the warrant of the allegations involved, and the warrant is a seperate legal entity entirely? (Jeez, lawyers gotta think this way all the time? No wonder they drink.) ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/71 "2005-11-02T00:47:53Z")
From Andrew Sullivan’s blog (a reader writes in): > [@](#): > > You emailer mischaracterizes Alito’s dissent in the Groody case. Alito was not proposing to simply “ignore the plain text of the warrant”; he argued that the text of the warrant was ambiguous and that the officers therefore could reasonably rely on the affidavit to justify the search and enjoy qualified immunity. > > Both the majority and Alito agreed that, if the warrant was ambiguous, or if the warrant incorporated the supporting affidavit, the affidavit could be used to support the search. However, as Alito makes plain in his dissent: “My disagreement with the majority concerns the question whether the mode of incorporation [of the affidavit in support of and attached to the warrant, which sought authorization to search all persons found on the subject property] in this case was adequate.” > > The majority conceded that warrants are not to be read in a legalistic and hypertechnical manner and that a court may look to the supporting affidavit to clarify any ambiguity or correct a clerical error in the warrant. The majority found that there was no express incorporation of the affidavit or ambiguity that required resort to the affidavit for clarification. > > In contrast, Alito noted that one of the paragraphs of the warrant did incorporate the affidavit, at least with respect to the probable cause statements of the affidavit, which Alito concluded created at least an ambiguity that justified reliance on the affidavit. Moreover, there was evidence in the record to support the conclusion that the officers intended to incorporate the affidavit. Given the governing standard for construing warrants, which the majority did not dispute – “commonsense and realistic” – Alito concluded there was sufficient basis to justify the search. > > Wholly apart from whether or not search warrant adequately incorporated the supporting affidavit, Alito also believed there were sufficient facts that justified the application of qualified immunity to protect the officers from the lawsuit. > > In sum, Alito and the majority largely agreed on the law, but disagreed on whether the facts in the record supported the validity of the search under the warrant. I think the majority probably had the better of the argument on the construction of the warrant and Alito had the better of the qualified immunity issue (there was no evidence that the officers knowingly or willfully violated anyone’s civil rights and plenty of evidence that the officers reasonably believed they were acting pursuant to a valid warrant in the execution of the law). In any event, the case is much closer than your emailer suggests and does not evince an “activist” bent on “statist” results. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/72 "2005-11-02T01:46:48Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, now, there is that word “particularly”, meaning, as I understand it, a specific and discrete entity or entities. “Joseph Blow, Jesse Blow, little Joe Jr.” is specfic, “whoever happens to be there when we get there” is not. > > And this stuff about the affidavit. Does that really matter? Does the warrant say “whoever is named in the affidavit”? Or is the affidavity intended to inform that issuer of the warrant of the allegations involved, and the warrant is a seperate legal entity entirely? (Jeez, lawyers gotta think this way all the time? No wonder they drink.) There is another important issue\* that I think is being missed. If the police violate procedures, but didn’t willfully do so, then you don’t get to claim they acted illegally. In this case, the police claim they concluded that the warrant DID give them the authority to search “anyone on the premises”, due to the attachment of and reference to the affidavit. The question then becomes, did the police abuse their authority knowingly, or did they act in good faith? From Alito’s opinion: > [@](#): > > … even if hte warrant did not contain such authorization, areasonable police officer could certainly have read the warrant to have done so, and therefore the apellants [the cops] are entitled to qualified immunity. FYI, [qualified immunity.](http://www.robertslaw.org/qualifie.htm) \*I’m not entirely clear on this, and may be wrong, so I’d love to have it either confirmed or refuted by one of our Legal Beagles. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/73 "2005-11-02T01:56:09Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Far be it from me to defend Schafly, and I don’t know that I’d agree with her interpretation of “judicial activism”, but you might note that most of her examples are instances of state law overturned by Federal Judges. As I noted in the other thread. one would expect non-activist federal judges to overturn more federal than state laws, since the federal constitution places much more constraint on Congress than it does on the States. That’s the key that I think you are missing. Okay, fair enough. So really, as it applies to judges on the Supreme Court, the argument about judicial activism really has nothing to do about this mumbo-jumbo about usurping the power of the legislature…It has to do about an argument about federal vs. state rights? If that is the case, I think it would be nice if: (1) …someone would go back and show that the reason why you get this positive correlation between a judge’s conservativism and voting to overturn Congress is that many if not most of the cases involved federal vs. state authority and if you removed such cases, you would no longer see this correlation (and perhaps see a negative correlation?). In other words, you have a reasonable hypothesis but has not yet been shown to be true. (2) …those conservatives who believe that judicial activism has nothing to do with whether or not a judge overturns the legislatures decisions would jump on those conservatives who phrase it as an issue of the Imperial Judiciary running roughshod over the will of the people as expressed through their legislatures. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/74 "2005-11-02T02:43:29Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > You’d be right if there was absolutely no reference to other occupants. But that’s not the case. The affidavit, which is referenced on the warrant, specifies other people on the premises. The _affidavit_ references other occupants. The warrant did not. And while the warrant did refer to the affidavit when discussing probable cause, it did not refer to the affidavit when discussing who and what was to be searched. If it had…if the warrant had said “all persons and places discussed in the attached affidavit” or somesuch…then this wouldn’t be an issue. But it didn’t. The warrant, in the section describing who and what was to be searched, described John Doe and John Doe’s residence. Period. > [@](#): > > In fact, the officers note that there simply wasn’t room on the form to list other names, which is why the noted that 3 separate times on the affidavit. Apparently the 4th amendment is trumped by the _size of the forms_ available to police officers. Silly me. > [@](#): > > Why do you consistently ignore that part-- because you didn’t read it, or because it doesn’t support your cause? Because it’s irrelevant. The 4th amendment doesn’t say “and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, unless the police officer’s forms are too short, in which case whatever’s written on the affidavit or whatever we think the magistrate meant after the fact is fine.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/75 "2005-11-02T02:59:37Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > The _affidavit_ references other occupants. The warrant did not. And while the warrant did refer to the affidavit when discussing probable cause, it did not refer to the affidavit when discussing who and what was to be searched. If it had…if the warrant had said “all persons and places discussed in the attached affidavit” or somesuch…then this wouldn’t be an issue. > > But it didn’t. The warrant, in the section describing who and what was to be searched, described John Doe and John Doe’s residence. Period. > > Apparently the 4th amendment is trumped by the _size of the forms_ available to police officers. No, because a police officer doesn’t have to have a warrant to search you, he just has to have probable cause. Since the cops referenced the affidavit in the “probably cause” section of the warrant form, and the magistrate accepted the warrant w/o modificiation, it is REASONABLE that the cops felt they could assume they had established probable cause. You may disagree with that, but it’s not an outrageous position. See my last post (directed at **elucidator** ) for more details. > [@](#): > > Silly me. I’ll let that part stand on its own. > [@](#): > > Because it’s irrelevant. The 4th amendment doesn’t say “and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, unless the police officer’s forms are too short, in which case whatever’s written on the affidavit or whatever we think the magistrate meant after the fact is fine.” See my post above concerning probable cause. If want to continue arguing that Alito would have crippled the 4th amendment with his decision, then we’re done here, because that is plainly not the case. I’m sure if this is as you see it, it will come up in the confirmation hearings and we’ll get the whole story. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/76 "2005-11-02T03:06:36Z")
I think, if the police were searching a crack house, then even though I disapprove of strip searching toddlers (to make it sound more dramatic), then there was probable cause to search anyone on the premises. People are not there for tea and biscuits after all. Feel free to call me a reactionary conservative freedom hater now 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/77 "2005-11-02T03:24:17Z")
> [@John F](#): > > Is the idea of talking to the Husband before having an abortion really “beyond the norm” ? > > On issues about kids like having them, not having them, aborting them, adopting them, sterilizing yourself, and so on… I would think it’s normal for spouses to discuss these things with each other prior to taking action. I’m not sure if you are just being polite and avoiding the obvious circumstances this is aimed at, but isn’t this most likely going to involve occasions where the husband is not the father? Should the woman be compelled to discuss it with her husband then? Why? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/78 "2005-11-02T14:52:38Z")
And this just in… > [@](#): > > If it becomes clear Alito would vote to reverse Roe v. Wade, Americans would not want the Senate to confirm him, by 53% to 37%. > > . . . The views about Alito, especially whether he should be confirmed if he opposes Roe v. Wade, are highly partisan. Majorities of Republicans and conservatives favor confirmation in that circumstance, while even larger majorities of independents, Democrats, moderates, and liberals are opposed… Gallup Poll by way of _Daily Kos_ ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/79 "2005-11-02T15:35:33Z")
Orbifold: Going purely by the text of the 4th amendment, I’d say there’s no reason at all to think other people on the premesis can’t be _searched_ without being named on the warrant. It’s _seizure_ that requires that each person or item be specifically named. Any lawyer dopers care to tell me where I’m off-base on this, or what Court decision (at least prior to the case we’re discussing in which Alito dissented) states interprets it to mean that each person in a place named on a warrant must have their names on the warrant as well in order to allow the police to search them? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/80 "2005-11-02T15:35:56Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > And this just in… > Gallup Poll by way of _Daily Kos_ Let’s be serious. Do you honestly think it is ever going to be “clear” that any nominee, including Alito, will overturn _Roe_? These guys are smarter than that… But you do know that polls can be tricky and it depends on how one asks the question, right? How many people think that Roe being overturned = abortion becomes illegal? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778.md?page=5)