On the Supreme Court decision ... I added another link to the bottom of the last post from a critic of SWAT practices that further skewers Justice Scalia's opinion, including the claim that police are more professional/protective of the liberties respecting this matter. The criticism underlines something that often is not present in the coverage of such opinions (or in the opinions themselves): the real life consequences of the principles being promoted. For instance, various victims of knock/announce tactics as well as the true results of "alternative" remedies.
Besides pointing out the dishonesty of Scalia's approach (and Kennedy for trying to distance himself from it, while joining the opinion in full except for the final appeal to precedent), it puts a human face on the whole matter.* Supreme Court cases are in large part narrow questions of law, but they also deal with real life people and problems. This was shown by a show on Court TV (Supreme Court Watch) that was on in the late '90s that included background stories to various litigants in key cases. Overall, instead of (as was the case in the brief AP story in the NY Daily News) brief blurbs on what was handed down -- or even more expansive discussion of the reasoning found in some other papers -- how about a personal sidebar sort of deal to give the general public a taste of what is involved?
After all, real life crime docudramas seem to be fairly popular. And, over the years, a few cases have been made into pretty good movies, often made for t.v. -- the Amistad (with Justice Blackmun having a cameo), Buck v. Bell (Marlee Matlin), Brown v. Bd. of Ed. (two versions, one with Sidney Poitier), Gideon v. Wainright (Henry Fonda), Loving v. Virginia, and Roe v. Wade (Amy Madigan) being ones that come to mind. Plessy and the Japanese Internment Cases also would be great fodder as would various others -- for instance, Vashti Cromwell McCollum's One Woman's Fight, originally written in the 1950s, provides an "average housewife" account of a key religious ruling.
[Even her name, Persian for "beautiful," is interesting -- it arises from the queen in the book of Esther who refused to be put on display by the king, perhaps because this included her exposing her body. This feminist move (causing other men in the kingdom hardship, since their wives also decided to be less subservient -- clearly she had to go) led the way for our heroine to step in. As the author herself noted, ironically, many of her more "religious" critics did not know the name's back story. True enough since actually fully understanding the Bible will make it harder for some to interpret it the way they do.]
The fight over the courts is a major concern for both sides, especially emotional to many on the Right. There is a reason for this, and a look at real life stories ("tell them stories," Justice Brennan encouraged) can help tell why.
---
* Some criticized the opinion as non-originalist, but the exclusionary rule arguably is not that. A sounder approach is to note that the knock rule is originalist as is the right to have viable remedies for its violation. And, it is not as if conservative critics of the exclusionary rules loyally support such things. As usual, things have changed since 1789, including much more powerful police. A true originalist would need to take such things into account, not attempt (selectively) to apply 18th Century ideas as if the world did not change around them.