The Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. together with other judges; however, expressed discomfort with what they termed government sanctioned bodily intrusions using sharp needles (Liptak, 2013). Missouri prosecutors' petition was occasioned by a case where one Tyler G. McNeely was pulled over for speeding on a highway. Tyler, according to the Supreme Court, had the telltale signs of intoxication (Liptak, 2013). He had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and had the smell of alcohol in his breath. Besides, his performance in field sobriety test was poor. Tyler was adamant about taking breath test. He did not consent to taking blood test either. A blood test was nevertheless taken and the results showed that the blood alcohol level was 0.15%. The state court suppressed the evidence provided on grounds that the officers failed to obtain a warrant to enable them conduct bodily intrusions. The Missouri v. McNeely, No. 11-1425, raised issues concerning whether dissipation of blood alcohol can justify taking ones blood without a warrant in case of absence of additional factors complicating matters (Liptak, 2013).

With regard to judicial officers engaging in judicial campaigns, I totally concur with the writer's position that this negates the officers' impartiality and contribute to impropriety in dispensing justice. The Code of Judicial Conduct is very explicit on the conduct of court judges. It also illuminates matters pertaining impropriety on the bench. A judge who has been supported by corporate bodies like the oil, gas, electrical, and chemical industries in his...

John Summers is anything to go by. The writer of this article is against the position of conservatives on judicial campaigns.
The article is very fair as it provides sentiments expressed by some officers of the Court like Justice Willet vis-a-vis the Texan Judicial Code of Conduct.

Regarding Missouri v. McNeely, No. 11-1425, I totally disagree with the outcome of this article where Justice Scalia proposes that drivers who have refused to take breath test be told that blood would otherwise be drawn because a warrant had been requested. This boils down to intimidation and violation of constitutional rights that are safeguarded by Fourth Amendment provisions. Before a warrant is given an independent magistrate should review the evidence provided. This article is unbiased as it presents the positions of both the protagonists and the antagonists. It does not take side. The author of this article does not tell the readers the position s/he has taken.

References List

Cohen, a. (2012, Oct. 11). Would you Trust These State Justices to Review Your Cases. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/would-you-trust-these-s tate-justices-to-review-your-case/262480/

Liptak, a. (2013, Jan. 9). Justices Look at Legality of Drunken-Driving Test. New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/us/supreme-court-weighs-drunken-driving-blood-tests.html?_r=0