Johnny Coli

I doubt the Gravedigger is reaching for a bar of soap, either, but that's beside the point.

Been saying that for years. No one should be ashamed of the beer they drink. What do you think the guy that just put in a mile of fence posts is gonna reach for when he's toasting a hard day's work? He's not reaching for a Chimay, I'll tell you that. What's the guy that just replaced an engine block going to reach for after he wipes the grease off his hands? He's not reaching for a freaking Peroni. And what of the gravedigger? You think he's going to drink some fancy european beer after putting corpses in the ground on a rainy Saturday afternoon? Hell no. These men aren't ashamed to drink an ice cold beer from a can that they didn't pay a King's ransom for. These men aren't going to traipse on over to the liquor store and shell out their sweat-soaked dollar bills for designer suds that won an obscure award at some hippy festival. And you shouldn't feel like you have to, either. If Pabst Blue Ribbon is good enough for a guy that digs graves for a living, it's sure as good enough for the guy that works in a cubicle.

The only free radio is college radio streamed over the internet, people! Throw off the shackles of Corporate Rock and download free podcasts from the internet from college stations and indy labels. Don't let the purveyors of mediocrity ram their same tired, monotonous "hits" into your eardrums day after day turning your brain into mush, forcing you to buy lame-o products that you don't want but have to get just to shut out the voices in your head. Don't allow yourselves to be lobotomized by FM radio, which has been under the control of the Freemasons since they threw Armstrong off a balcony in '54 (FM...it was right in front of your face the whole damn time, you zombies!). YOU have the power to wrest new music out of the hands of the A&R pimps who are forcing you to swallow what they're waving in front of your face! YOU have the power to tear down the walls of the Billboard Top 100 prison the Corporate Whores have incarcerated you in! Tell them to go to hell! NO! I won't listen to Nelly Furtado! NO! Get 50 cent out of my damn eardrums! NO! Keep your filthy hands off my aural pleasure zones! YOU can listen to what YOU want! Take back the damn airwaves!

Yes, which makes his concurring opinion that much more perplexing in light of the preceding and following statements. So, k&a is a protection under our constitution, but it doesn't matter that it was violated? Even though he considers it a basic Fourth Amendment right, which by the way, if violated would fall under the Exclusionary rule with respect to unlawfully seized evidence.

But, this ruling opens the door for a more broad interpretation of what can be considered an evidence-suppressing violation of the Fourth Amendment. All four of the dissenting judges and one of the concurring judges, Kennedy, agree that k&a is a Fourth Amendment right. How does violating a Fourth Amendment right not lead to suppression of the evidence as it falls under the Exclusion rule? Of course I'm not saying that. But to base a legal opinion in the highest court in this nation on "the professionalism of our police" as it stands in this day and age seems a bit short-sighted. But it would also make any evidence against the later admissable as well. Are you suggesting it would be OK for the police to break down any door unannounced, provided they got a warrant? Because according to this majority opinion, they just made it pretty damn easy for that to occur.

The flexibility of k&a doesn't mean it can never be applied. It suggests that is isn't always required. Kennedy admits the ties to the Fourth in his different, yet concurring opinion for Hudson. He's not denying that k&a is a Fourth Amendment right. He's saying that in spite of the violation of k&a the evidence can not be suppressed. So, even though the Fourth was violoated in this case, it has no bearing on the legality of the evidence. To me, and to four of the other SCJs, that clearly smacks up against Exclusionary. Breyer:

Sure I did. From Wilson: K&A is tied to the Fourth, that if deemed to be violated would most certainly be applicable to Exclusionary. This Court has taken it off the table completely. How is that not speaking to Exclusionary, if it can no longer be applied in a Fourth Amendment question?

Yes and no. They're saying that the illegality of the k&a has no bearing on the admissibility of the evidence obtained post-illegal entry, with respect to k&a. From Scalia: But, that seems unreasonably broad, as it isn't specific to k&a. One interpretation would be that evidence is independent of how it was obtained. That seems to open up a whole lot of problems with regards to evidence, and how it is obtained. That's why I'm arguing that this flies in the face of the Exclusionary Rule. In this broad interpretation, one could argue that no evidence could be suppressed. The presence of a warrant was never in dispute. Also, show me any cop that will be deterred by departmental discipline and/or the possibility of having his/her department sued. My wife is a policeman's union lawyer. It's the union rep and her job to worry, not theirs. I'm not concerned with Mr. Hudson going to (staying in) jail. I'm more concerned with how this could be applied.

It's not just my opinion, it a pretty estalished fact that the Court has moved to the right. There's a reason Bush selected these two additions to the court. He's perfectly right to do that as the President, just as it's my right to disagree with his choices, as I'm sure many from the right would disagree with any president who sat two "liberal" judges. This particular ruling is not one I agree with, so I posted my disagreement with it. I'm sure if the Court was attacking the Second Amendment, there would be multiple posters stabbing at their keyboards attacking that decision. I don't think the "jack-booted fascists are coming to get us." But I'm pretty opposed to removing any right, however insignificant it may seem right now, that would make it easier for someone in the future. Sure, it may never happen, but why take the chance? The "technicalities" are there to protect innocent people, not criminals. I don't see a problem with establishing a set of rules that explicitly provide for that protection. Do some go free, absolutely. But the majority of the guilty end up in prison, as I'm sure a few innocent people do as well.

Another spot-on analysis, Wacka. Your ability to render the complexities of an issue down to it's most basic point is a gift, man.

You're going to have to further clarify the insult in there, G. I'm not getting what you're driving at.

See previous reply to Darin.

Just pointing out the bizzarre nature of the two, that's all. Seemed like a weird bit of an aside when looking at both sets of laws.

Because it speaks directly to the lawfullness of a search and seizure. The court had previously held that "knock and announce" was relevent to lawful entry, as per the Fourth Amendment and English Common law. How could the court taking this off the table not affect the Exclusionary rule, which states that evidence gathered from an unlawful search and seizure is inadmissible? The Court kicked it back to the states to determine under which circumstances Wilson could be ignored. When or when it is applicable isn't an issue in this instance. They are saying that whether it is used or not has no bearing on the admissibility of the evidence.

Wilson, a unanimous decision by the court back in 1995, and explained in Breyer's dissent, directly speaks to the resonableness of the search, whether-or-not you think it's horse sh--. So, in the eyes of the Court (up until yesterday), "politeness" as you put it, is relevent with respect to the Fourth Amendment.

The SCOTUS made their ruling on Hudson v. Michigan yesterday (WaPo link). Here is a link to the three opinions…Scalia writes for the majority, Kennedy issues a second concurring opinion, and Breyer writes the dissent. From the Wapo article: Basically, the “knock and announce” rule requires police with a search warrant in hand to announce themselves and wait a reasonable amount of time prior to knocking down the door. Violations of this rule bump into the Fourth Amendment right against an illegal search and seizure, and could (up until yesterday, that is) result in an exclusion or suppression of evidence gathered at a premises. In Scalia’s (and the SCOTUS majorities’) opinion, as long as the police have a warrant, no evidence should be suppressed, or excluded, whether or not the police violated the Fourth Amendment right. The violation of the civil right does not have bearing on the legality of the gathered evidence. Civil rights violations can be dealt with as an internal police matter (“internal discipline” is Scalia’s wording), or litigated separately as a civil rights suit. In other words, departmental oversight and possible civil rights reviews would be the only deterrent the police of 2006 would need, based on the fact that “development over the past half-century that deters civil-rights violations is the increasing professionalism of police forces, including a new emphasis on internal police discipline....” Today’s cop is hip to civil rights, and wouldn’t dream of stepping over them to get evidence. Riiiight…. Dissenters of this opinion (and I’ll raise my hand high in agreement with the dissent, as well) believe this is a direct assault on the Exclusionary Rule, which suppresses evidence obtained in an unlawful search and seizure. From Breyer’s dissenting opinion: So, there goes yet another civil right. It should be noted that this case was before SCOTUS while O’Connor was still on the bench, but was re-heard once Alito replaced her. It has been suggested that she would have tilted toward the dissenting opinion, making it the majority opinion, thus saving a pretty significant piece of the constitution. That was a quick one, Alito. Nathan Newman at TPM Café brings up an interesting conservative paradox, in light of the Hudson v Michigan decision…the NRA-backed “Castle Doctrine”. From the NRA link: Wild. So, this NRA-endorsed “self-defense” right (signed by Jeb Bush, no less) allows you to shoot anyone entering your home unannounced, and Hudson v Michigan (which destroys some of the Fourth Amendment, via Alito, via Jeb Bush’s brother) says that cops don’t have to bother announcing themselves before bashing in your door (provided they have a warrant, unless you're a WOT "suspect", wink-wink, then no warrant is necessary). What about the rest of us law-abiding citizens who will just get caught in the almost-certain cross-fire? Do we get to keep any rights?

This laughable hit piece on Olbermann lists some (four, actually pretty tame compared to some of the stuff posted in this very forum) replies he had to two viewers' emails (viewers who chose to slink away anonymously, I might add), but conveniently doesn't show what the emails he was replying to contained...you know, the emails that prompted him to respond. And, yet, he apologized. When was the last time O'Reilly apologized for any of the hate he spews? You think Coulter ever apologizes? The four examples this idiot from the NYDN lists pale in comparison to the crap spun forth over the airways by the likes of Savage and O'Reilly every day. The day Savage apologizes for blaming George Soros for the Holocaust, or likening Jimmy Carter to Hitler, will be newsworthy, indeed. If Olbermann is guilty of anything, it's allowing himself to be lowered to the level of (or ambushed by) these two "anonymous" clowns.

You may get your wish, dude. Chatter about Obama's 2008 plans picks up I could see him as a very good choice for a VP running mate.

Maybe we should just run Ned Lamont in 2008. The guy's a freaking juggernaut right now. He could run against the GOP's 2008 candidate, Joe Lieberman.

You beat me to it. Gore has already stated on several occassions that he's not running. Kerry won't get the support he got last time, and Hillary is too polarizing, even in the party. Anyway, both are senators, and there hasn't been a senator elected POTUS since JFK. It's still too early for Obama, yet. Warner's starting to get some serious mojo right now. A Warner/Wes Clark ticket would be formidable, I believe.

Or they were too stoned and got it wrong.

The author's suggestion that scientists not directly involved in "climate change" research aren't qualified enough to interpret data is misleading. One does not need to be an expert on a specific aspect of science to understand what impact data might have on the larger picture. The reality is that there is a consensus amongst the scientific community as a whole, recognizing that global warming can be attributed to human activity. In fact, the scientists from twelve national academies of science issued a statement today to the G8. Scientists urge G8 not to ignore global warming Here is their statement from last year (Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (pdf)) The National Academy(s) of Science from twelve nations signed onto the statement today, and eleven of them were on the document from last year. These aren't twelve individual scientists. These are twelve national academies. The author of the opinion piece would have you believe that none of the signatories that had the blessings from their respective national academy members, and none of the scientists recognized for their work by the worldwide scientific community, are qualified to interpret climate change data and fit that data into the larger picture? Based on the comments from a few? That's about as uninformed an opinion as you can get.

That race had a three-term Republican congressman running against a 55 year old school board member in a district heavily dominated by registered republicans. The RNCC spent almost $5 milion dollars in that race and won 49% to 44% (for a seat that is up for re-election again in seven months, I might add), and they needed the benefit of an 11th hour blunder on the part of Busby to do it. If the GOP needed to spend $5 million to get a Rep elected in a district with a huge lean toward the Red, how much will they have to spend in races in moderate districts around the country? Maybe they can tap into Tom Delay's election defense fund?

Andrew Sullivan in his Time.com blog calls her "a drag queen impersonating a fascist."

I'm of the mind that people like her should be put under the whitehot spotlight and should be exposed for dispensing the hate-filled lies they try to pass off as mainstream opinion. We shouldn't sweep the hate and bigotry under the rug...we need to lure it out into the daylight and crush it with reason and rational thought. Usually, Coulter can be dismissed as a partisan nut. But this time the hate she spews needs to be seen by everyone.