Pictured above: Chief Justice John Roberts, activist.
Or why the Justice Sunday™ activist judges joke would make me laugh if this wasn't the opinion of the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court:
The imminence of the danger posed by drunk drivers exceeds that at issue in other types of cases. In a case like J. L., the police can often observe the subject of a tip and step in before actual harm occurs; with drunk driving, such a wait-and-see approach may prove fatal. Drunk driving is always dangerous, as it is occurring. This Court has in fact recognized that the dangers posed by drunk drivers are unique, frequently upholding anti-drunk-driving policies that might be constitutionally problematic in other, less exigent circumstances.
With the exception of the death penalty, he wasn't hired to give his opinion regarding the societal and emotional aspects of a specific crime. Chief Justice Roberts is entitled to his personal opinions and rightly so. But as the administrative head of the judicial branch of the Federal government, those opinions have no real place in the questions his job is charged to answer.
[VIA: Libertarian asshole, Radley Balko. Ya know, that Senior Editor and contributor for this commie iRag.]