LAW AND DISORDER

SUPREME COURT SPLITS ALONG HUMITARIAN LINES

A recent case before the Supreme Court served to set in relief a new rift that has occurred between the most conservative justices and the ones who are just plain conservative.

The case in point has to do with eminent domain, in an enticingly arguable way.  It seems that police were trying to enter a home where the husband was reportedly beating his wife. 

The wife told the cops, “Please, come in!”

But her husband insisted, “No, go away!” 

The spousal disagreement prompted the daunting legal question, Does one out of two invitations from those in the domain suffice for police entry?

In ruling on the case, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas all agreed on the propriety of penetrability.  One consent from the residents, they decided, is sufficient.  The police had the right to enter the domain and stop the marital fisticuffs.

On the other hand, Justice Souter, in an unaccustomedly humanitarian mood, wrote most eloquently for the dissenting judges, even mentioning the well-accepted tradition that “a man’s home is his castle.  Although he did not mention that it might also be a woman’s, we can assume that he took the inference for granted. 

What prompted him to rule on behalf of the sanctity of the home?  Perhaps Justice Souter was contemplating the inviolability of his own little red home in New Hampshire.  He might also have recalled a California man’s startling suggestion, in the wake of a previous decision of his that was not so kind to property rights, that his treasured retreat be replaced by a hotel.

In their opinions, the justices became unusually pointed in their references to one another’s position, but the barbs went no further than their overriding collegiality would allow.  At no point did one challenge the other’s right to enter the Supreme Court.

RETURN TO HOME