Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds

Chief Justice Roberts and His Federalist Society Ideology

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message Kevin Gosztola       (Page 1 of 3 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   4 comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; , Add Tags  (less...)
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H1 1/31/09

Author 7416
Become a Fan
  (66 fans)
- Advertisement -

A recent court decision of 5-to-4 in the case of Herring v. United States shows that the “exclusionary rule” may be at risk and the man leading the onslaught on the rule may be Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr, a Bush Administration lawyer through and through who many now know as the guy who fumbled words when administering Obama’s oath of office.


The “exclusionary rule”, as the New York Times’ Adam Liptak describes it, is “the principle that evidence obtained by police misconduct cannot be used against a defendant.” According to Liptak, “in 1983, a young lawyer in the Reagan White House was hard at work on what he called in a memorandum “the campaign to amend or abolish the exclusionary rule.”” That young lawyer was the man who is now chief justice of the United States---Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.

While there is a proven record of attacks on the exclusionary rule (speeches, opinion editorials, litigation, and proposed legislation), none of the attacks, which stem from the idea that there are judicial activists out there who threaten our nation’s Constitution, have ever gained much traction until this recent case.

- Advertisement -

As Liptak writes, “the chief justice’s majority opinion established for the first time that unlawful police conduct should not require the suppression of evidence if all that was involved was isolated carelessness. That was a significant step in itself. More important yet, it suggested that the exclusionary rule itself might be at risk.”

Chief Justice Roberts said of the decision:

To trigger the exclusionary rule…police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system. [That price being] letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free.

- Advertisement -

The Herring decision concerns an “officer's mistaken belief” that Bennie D. Herring, an Alabama man, was “subject to an outstanding arrest warrant. “Sloppy recordkeeping”, apparently, led to the misconduct.

Liptak explains that the decision may not be able to apply to all cases dealing with the “exclusionary rule” but notes that Chief Justice Roberts added a lot of “sweeping suggestions that all sorts of police carelessness should not require.

The wiping away of the exclusionary rule would not be much of a possibility if a man who publicly claims to disagree with Warren Court decisions on areas of criminal procedure, religious freedom, and voting rights, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr, wasn’t on the Supreme Court with Chief Justice Roberts.

Craig M. Bradley, a law professor at Indiana University, is quoted in the article by Liptak as saying Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. makes it possible for the elimination of the exclusionary rule.

Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr, and Chief Justice Roberts, all Reagan alumni, make up the four votes that would settle the issue once and for all. The fifth vote would have to come from Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, according to Liptak.

Chief Justice Roberts & the Federalist Society

- Advertisement -

At the root of the issue concerning the “exclusionary rule” is the idea that the Fourth Amendment could be seriously damaged even more than it already has been by prior court decisions if more cases set precedents like the Herring v. United States quite possibly happens to do.

The problem manifesting itself, however, is not just an issue concerning the Fourth Amendment. It’s an issue of ideology that stems from the background that Chief Justice Roberts has in government and in the public sphere.

When Roberts was up for confirmation, the Washington Post dutifully reported that Roberts was “a member of the Federalist Society” and once served “on the steering committee of the group's Washington chapter.”

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3


- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

Kevin Gosztola is managing editor of Shadowproof Press. He also produces and co-hosts the weekly podcast, "Unauthorized Disclosure." He was an editor for

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

We Do Not Consent to Warrantless "Porno-Scanning" in Airports

Do They Put Lipstick on Pigs at the Funny Farm?

How Private Prison Corporations Hope Arizona's SB1070 Will Lead to Internment Camps for Illegals

Why the Battle Against TSA Groping and Body Scanners is Justified

Give Obama a Chance to Do What?