SHE SAID YES, HE SAID NO, AND HE WON - Yahoo! News
Chief Justice Roberts, in his first written dissent since he joined the court last year, had by far the better of the argument. He found Souter's opinion "puzzling." It would work against an innocent wife seeking to disassociate herself from her husband's criminal activity. Police would simply depart if they were frustrated by the husband's refusal to let them in. Roberts asked: What happens to the wife "once the door clicks shut"? The chief justice foresaw many such cases. His colleagues in the majority had opted to protect the husbandly rights of Scott Randolph. What of her wifely rights? "Remember that it is her home, too." "Mrs. Randolph did not invite the police to join her for dessert and coffee." She felt the need of the protective presence of the police. "The majority's rule apparently forbids police from entering to assist with a domestic dispute if the abuser whose behavior prompted the request for police assistance objects."I gotta wonder just a little bit about what Souter was thinking in this ruling. When I read the first paragraphs of this article, the first thing I wondered how it would apply to domestic abuse cases, too. I'm liking this chief justice more and more, I think.