Dissent

Within the case two judges ruled against the majority, Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia. Justice Thomas is of the opinion that the case focuses on the rights of gang members and not the citizens of Chicago. According to Justice Thomas the ordinance is Chicago’s way of going back to the basic format of law enforcement. He states; “the ordinance does nothing more than confirm the well - established principle that the police have the duty and the power to maintain the public peace, and when necessary, to disperse groups of individuals who threaten it.” (Chicago v. Morales, 1999)In general I agree with this statement, but the issue is bigger than maintaining public peace. I feel if the ordinance was given validity it would become an open - gate to other sinister plots by city officials disguised as normal practices of law. The ordinance was considered a preventive measure in dealing with gang members, perceiving them guilty. If I’m not mistaking that is profiling. Justice Scalia argument is the same as Justice Thomas, and feels the majority is ignoring their rules on governing facial challenges. However acknowledges that Chicagoans’ are giving up certain freedoms to create peace in the streets, and I quote, "The minor limitation upon all Chicagoans seemed to them (and it seems to me) a small price to pay for liberation of their streets.” (Chicago v. Morales, 1999) I think of a wolf in sheep’s clothing.