Quote:
Originally posted by Captain
While I agree that it's a bizarre decision in a lot of ways, I think the court forced itself into a corner by eliminating other ways of redressing constitutional violations. What good is a constitutional prohibition on an invasion of privacy (an improper search and seizure, for example) without some penalty for a violation of that right? If the court won't mess with sovereign immunity, then the government can't really be held accountable to the constitution, can it? And what good is a constitution that a Government can ignore?
So they latched on to the only remedy left.
But to fix the problem, I think we have to fix sovereign immunity.
(Sorry if this is repetitive, but I think the train of thought had gotten buried before).
|
i suspect that Rehnquist would not have flinched to get rid of the exlusionary rule, on the basis that an action in tort would sound, even if sovereign immunity could be invoked.
