<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<oembed>
	<version>1.0</version>
	<type>link</type>
	<objectid>133253</objectid>
	<title><![CDATA[Yet Another Reason to Fear a McCain Supreme Court]]></title>
	<url>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-robinson/yet-another-reason-to-fea_b_133253.html</url>
	<abstract><![CDATA[<p>There are plenty of reasons to fear the possibility of a McCain-appointed Supreme Court justices, but the future of the exclusionary rule is one we don't discuss much. The <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/06.html">exclusionary rule</a> is the legal principle that evidence obtained through improper means cannot be used against a defendant. So anything that turns up during an illegal search is worthless in court. It's a pretty basic concept, although surprisingly it wasn't actually explicitly mandated by the Supreme Court until 1961, in...</p>]]></abstract>
	<taxonomy><![CDATA[Politics]]></taxonomy>
	<date_published>2008-11-09T05:12:00-05:00</date_published>
</oembed>
