|
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
by Joseph Farah
Have Antonin
Scalia and Clarence Thomas flipped their lids?
That's my
question after reading the U.S.
Supreme Court decision this week that says it's all right
for police to arrest and handcuff citizens for minor traffic
violations such as the failure to wear seatbelts. (See Atwater
v. Lago Vista, 99-1408.)
Are these guys
nuts?
Maybe you're
wondering why I'm singling out two members of the majority of
five ruling? Simple. I don't expect much from the rest of the
court. But I have believed that Scalia and Thomas are
principled constitutionalists and common-sense lovers of
freedom and limited government.
In this case,
the justices ruled against a woman who was arrested and
handcuffed for failure to wear a seatbelt while driving. They
found that such arrests do not violate the constitutional
protection against unreasonable search. And they said such an
arrest does not violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment
protection against unreasonable seizures.
The Fourth
Amendment, I'll remind you, protects "the right of the
people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and
seizures.''
If this is not
an unreasonable search and seizure, I'm afraid we've lost
sight of the meaning of those words.
The woman was
driving her two children home from soccer practice in 1997 in
Lago Vista, Texas, when she was stopped by a police officer
who had noticed the three were not wearing seat belts. Texas
law allows police to make arrests for routine traffic
violations, except for speeding.
There's an
interesting distinction in the law. You would think speeding
would be a more serious offense than not wearing seatbelts.
But not in Texas.
The officer
arrested the mother, handcuffed her hands behind her back and
took her to the city police station. A friend looked after her
children and her pickup truck was towed away.
Atwater's mug
shot was taken and she was released after posting bond. She
later pleaded no contest to the seat belt offense and paid the
maximum $50 fine.
Scalia and
Thomas were joined by Justice David H. Souter, who wrote for
the majority. Souter always seems to be on the wrong side of
Supreme Court decisions. He's almost my barometer for my own
reading on a case. If Souter is for it, I'm against it. If
he's against it, I'm for it. It's a yardstick that has served
me well in the years he has served on the bench,
Chief Justice
William H. Rehnquist and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy rounded
out the majority. It didn't surprise me that either of these
justices would support unlimited police power.
To their
credit, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John
Paul Stevens) and Stephen Breyer dissented.
"Because
the court's position is inconsistent with the explicit
guarantee of the Fourth Amendment, I dissent,'' O'Connor
wrote. I agree. It's simple. It's cut and dried.
So what's got
into these other guys? I expect Souter to support a growing
police state in America. It doesn't surprise me that Rehnquist
and Kennedy do. But I would love to hear the thinking of
Scalia and Thomas.
The only
possible defense of this decision, in my opinion, would be
that the sovereign state of Texas has the right to pass any
idiotic laws it desires without interference from Washington.
If that was the argument, I would support it. But I haven't
heard that one lately from a U.S. Supreme Court justice.
My concern over
what may seem to be an isolated and trivial issue stems from
the inevitable result of this ruling: More police abuses of
this kind. The U.S. Supreme Court just handed abusive cops the
power to push around citizens who pose no danger to anyone
else.
Mandatory seat
belt laws are stupid. They serve only one purpose -- to
increase state power over the individual. They are an excuse
for the government to poke its nose into your automobile
without any other cause. They open the door to this kind of
abuse. And this Supreme Court decision gives the jackboots
license to run roughshod over any one of us any time.
Shame on Scalia
and Thomas and the rest of the majority. My guess is they
don't buckle up in their government-subsidized limos. They are
out of touch with the growing fear and apprehension Americans
have toward their government and its police forces.
|
HOME >>
