Friday dawned sunny, but the weather was scheduled to turn foul in the afternoon. Further, Blogger was acting wonky, and so I took it as an omen to get some work done and go to the range.
I got home from the range to find my inbox filling up with emails about the Indiana Supreme Court's decision in Barnes v. Indiana, which I would call "retarded" if it weren't for the fact that any random group of three people suffering from significantly impaired cognitive functioning could have cobbled together a better piece of jurisprudence than that steaming pile. As the afternoon wore on, some of the emails began to get more... er... hyperbolic, and I started to feel a little jaded. You know, I can only read so many insurrectionist mutterings of the sort that come on the heels of every bad law and awful court ruling before I want to yell "Fish or cut bait, dammit!" at the computer screen.
Anyhow, I had a pretty good funk going by the time my roommate got home, and the argument we had when she did didn't help. I made some pretty poor word choices and by the time I got my foot good and stuck in my mouth, the black cloud of depression hanging over my head was probably visible to the naked eye.
So, sporting a serious case of the Oh-What's-The-Uses, I just moped around the house and sulked for the last couple days.
But that doesn't help. Not me, nor anybody else.
Look, this was a colossally dumb ruling. If they just wanted to uphold the dude's conviction, they had a handy hook of Exigent Circumstances on which to hang the hat of their decision. But noooo! That wasn't good enough. Instead, in a textbook case of legislating from the bench, a couple of The-Government-Is-Your-Friend judges saw a chance to get rid of an annoying and icky antiquated bit of common law, using this case as a handy shovel to dig it out by the roots.
And what a crappy job of it they did, too: There are clumps of Fourth Amendment everywhere, not to mention specific statutory law in the form of a "Castle Doctrine" which wasn't addressed by their half-assed ruling (How's that gonna work? "Your honor, my client had no idea the deceased was a law enforcement officer, and under IC 35-41-3-2...")
Further, this is particularly badly-timed egg on Mitch Daniels' face, and as an added bonus, the thimble-headed gherkin who penned the majority opinion is facing a retention election next year.
I cannot begin to tell you how much I look forward to ticking the box marked "You're fired!"