These Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive *317 Branch. The Fourth Amendment does not contemplate the executive officers of Government as neutral and disinterested magistrates. Their duty and responsibility are to enforce the laws, to investigate, and to prosecute. Katz v. United States, supra, at 359--360, 88 S.Ct. at 515--516 (Douglas, J., concurring). But those charged with this investigative and prosecutorial duty should not be the sole judges of when to utilize constitutionally sensitive means in pursuing their tasks. The historical judgment, which the Fourth Amendment accepts, is that unreviewed executive discretion may yield too readily to pressures to obtain incriminating **2137 evidence and overlook potential invasions of privacy and protected speech.

It may well be that, in the instant case, the Government's surveillance of Plamondon's conversations was a reasonable one which readily would have gained prior judicial approval. But this Court 'has never sustained a search upon the sole ground that officers reasonably expected to find evidence of a particular crime and voluntarily confined their activities to the least intrusive means consistent with that end.' Katz, supra, at 356--357, 88 S.Ct. at 514. The Fourth Amendment contemplates a prior judicial judgment, [FN18] not the risk that executive discretion may be reasonably exercised. This judicial role accords with our basic constitutional doctrine that individual freedoms will best be preserved through a separation of powers and division of functions among the different branches and levels of Government. Harlan, Thoughts at a Dedication: Keeping the Judicial Function in Balance, 49 A.B.A.J. 943--944 (1963). The independent check upon executive discretion is not *318 satisfied, as the Government argues, by 'extremely limited' post-surveillance judicial review. Indeed, post-surveillance review would never reach the surveillances which failed to result in prosecutions. Prior review by a neutral and detached magistrate is the time-tested means of effectuating Fourth Amendment rights. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96, 85 S.Ct. 223, 228, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964).

Letting the pharmacists choose isn't "sanctimonious pomp" or "totalitarian thuggery", it's protection of the pharmacists' individual freedom.

Everyone has the freedom to live their lives following whatever beliefs they have.

But he may not impose his beliefs on others.

...he should consider another less mortifying career.

Remember, what the customers are doing is perfectly legal.

If you choose to live what you consider a pious life...

Should a checker be allowed to refuse to ring up a box of condoms if he or she is Catholic?

If I am mistaken, then please let me hear your arguments in favor of my individual right to work any job for which I might be qualified without fear of being fired for my sexual orientation.

You'd rather see someone die than offend a pharmacist.

The America you describe is one where there is a large profitable market of bigots, remaining untapped only by the force of the law. This is a fantasy.

III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient. A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients.

I'm asking for the government not to provide special protection to prescription deniers.

Just for clarity, does anybody here support special protection against being fired for refusing to fill prescriptions based on religious ideals?

how about reassigning them to some other job

We already tell pharmacists what we can sell or not sell.

Rational concerns over illegal prescriptions are quite another matter.

Any fool who says, "My religious beliefs won't allow me to do xyz" is a pure, unadulterated and hypocritical, lying fool to simultaneously continue working in an industry that caters to the sin they abhore...

...if they aren't selling it, others are and their employer is making scads of money...

Would you call those people hypocritical lying fools?

But as far as the law goes, I'd rather see someone die than require somebody to sell a certain product.

Is that so, Roy? Would you be willing to lay your life on the line like that in order not to offend a pharmacist's virtue?

But as far as the law goes, I'd rather see someone die than require somebody to sell a certain product.

Am I to be held legally accountable to the ethics code of any trade organization for my profession? Of course not.