NS -- People on parole aren't granted the same 4th Am protections as people who aren't. Parole officers are allowed to conduct searches without a warrant that would otherwise be unconstitutional.

ncarey -- Your point is well taken, but does not answer the question of what rights a person under arrest has/should have. Presumably, you wouldn't agree with the proposition that the police don't need a warrant to enter the home of a person under arrest. Arguably, it is reasonable to seach an impounded car for anything which could be dangerous so as to prevent injury or damage to anyone/anything during the period it is being impounded. The question is should the police have the right to conduct a search incident to arrest of electronic devices found on the person or anywhere within the vehicle of the person being arrested. In my opinion, none of the justifications of the search incident to arrest rule I have encountered seem reasonable or constitutional when it comes to electronic devices. I guess this would be one of those rare instances where I side with Scalia!

I'm pretty sure that the police cannot perform a search of your vehicle on a routine traffic stop. The police can order you out of the car and pat you down without probable cause (for their safety), but they still have to have probable cause to, say, search the contents of your trunk.

I hope you or a loved one never needs a legal, safe abortion.

Yeah, guys like Kucinich and Edwards have great ideas. I would have liked to have a chance to vote for one of them too. It would be nice if America was more to the left than it is. Regardless, in politics, half a loaf really is better than none.

My religious right family members will vote for any candidate that is even just a little more pro-life than the candidate from the opposing party. Why? Because that candidate is more likely to appoint pro-life federal judges -- who have the best job security in the country -- and are more likely to staff the Justice Department with people looking to put the squeeze on abortion providers. If you care at all about abortion rights, you can't sit home on election day or vote for McCain because you think he's a 'straight shooter' or vote for some far left third-party candidate.

Was Clinton's environmental policy great? Not really. But whose environmental policy was worse, his or Bush's? (or the elder Bush's? Or Reagan's?)

Who's going to have a better chance at enacting a better health care plan: Obama/Clinton or the Republican nominee?

Who is going to be more wedded to the notion of keeping a massive troop presence in Iraq: Obama/Clinton or the Republican nominee?

Do you really think 8 years of Clinton were worse than these 7 years of Bush? If you think things can't get any worse with another four years of Republican control of the executive, rest assured, things can and will get worse.

Whether its Obama or Clinton, vote for the Democratic nominee! When people ask you who you support, don't say, "well, I'm voting for Obama/Clinton, but I'm gonna hold my nose while I do it." That's not going to get your neighbor to vote your ticket! Let my far right wing Christian conservative family members say that and maybe they will talk themselves out of voting at all.

What's at stake is too important for internecine nonsense to get another Republican elected.

There is a huge difference between pacifism and the theory that states may legally engage in war depending upon the factual context of the dispute.

There is also a difference between the notion that states may legally engage in war and the notion that (1) anything less than total victory is a defeat and (2) that defeat is never acceptable.

If you aren't a pacifist, the key questions are what circumstances constitute "necessity" and what is the appropriate response given the circumstances.

My impression is that McCain, Romney, Obama and Clinton do not all share the same opinion with regard to the use of force, but if you could point to to a source that has compared and analyzed the candidates as to this issue, I would review it.

Andrew, you stated "food security in the developing world is the new rallying cry for activists of all persuasions." The effect of higher food prices on the developing world is one of the many things that I know nothing about. My guess as to what your statement means is that activists are worried about rising food prices, probably because it might increase starvation if people can't afford food.

Two questions: (1) Is my guess correct? 2) Couldn't higher food prices also help farmers in the developing world? Wouldn't that be a good thing?

"Or should we quit splitting hairs, given that anyone's better on, well, everything than John "'Moderate' My Ass" McCain?"

Splitting hairs is fine now, I suppose, as long as we abortion rights-supporters get in line come November, because, most assuredly, McCain will nominate judges like Alito and Scalia and lord knows we can't expect the Senate to help. Simply put, another Republican presidency and abortion rights are dust. Support the Democratic ticket!

"These aren't the years to wish a pox on your primary opponents' heads beyond June ... It is very possible to play full contact politics without the threat of going home if your team loses. The stakes in the fall are far too high for that."

Oh, yeah? What a loser! Us Democrats/liberals/progressives know how to get things done -- with the circular firing squad! Vote Nadir! Vote Daffy Duck! Clinton/Obama? Never! I support Obama/Clinton! Edwards was my guy! Half a loaf is never better than none. Getting something you would like by accepting something you would not isn't pure; instead, let's get nothing!