604

In his first dissenting opinion, new Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts proved he has no more integrity than the man who nominated him.

In a 5-3 decision yesterday, the Court ruled that police may not enter a home when one resident invites them in but another says no.

It's no surprise that the case for lowering the bar for police entry into private homes had the backing of the Bush administration, whose favorite pastime is finding new and interesting ways to invade the privacy of Americans. And it's no surprise that Roberts is only too happy to be of service to the administration's Big Brother ambitions. But Roberts defended his opinion the way Bush defended the invasion of Iraq — with a lie.

In his ruling, designed to further weaken privacy laws, Roberts claimed he was, in fact, trying to project women and other victims of domestic abuse:

The majority's rule apparently forbids police from entering to assist with a domestic dispute if the abuser whose behavior prompted the request for police assistance objects.

Justice David Souter, in a surprisingly blunt criticism of the Chief Justice, accused Roberts of trying to undo "the centuries of special protection for the privacy of the home." Further:

Souter called [Roberts'] argument a "red herring," saying that police would still have legal authority to enter homes where one partner was truly in danger.

That's one for our side. And it's about time.