Bob Barr had an opinion column in the paper yesterday. He called Chief Justice John Roberts' most recent dissent "unconstitutional" and railed against Roberts' allegedly non-strict-constructionist ideals. That's also BS. The case was that a woman who was having a row with her husband and knew he had a coke habit called the cops and invited them in to search her home. The husband stood at the door and refused them entrance at the same time the wife is inviting them in. They searched. Six of the Justices voted against the legality of searching the home, while Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts dissented. It's pretty simple here. The 4th Amendment protects us aginst unreasonable search and seizure, and when a woman asks police to search her home, it's hardly unreasonable for them to do so, even if the husband is concurrently refusing. Morally or ethically wrong, perhaps, but Roberts is not supposed to rule on morals and ethics, he's supposed to rule on the constitutionality of issues, and it seems disingenuous to say he's not following the Constitution in this case.