How typical of conservatives. When you don't have a legal or rational leg to stand on, attack those pointing out the error of your ways. The New York Times reports that as part of "law enforcement week," conservatives have launched an internet ad campaign supporting Judge Sam Alito's dissent in the 2004 case of Doe v. Groody (pdf), in which Alito argued it was okay for police to strip search a ten year old when the warrant only named her father. I kept reading the article, thinking I would learn the legal theory the ad relied as support for Alito's belief that the police action was justified. Instead, I found this:

The conservative advertisement attacks the "left-wing extremists" who oppose Judge Alito, saying they "may have found new allies, drug dealers who hide their drugs on children."

Judge Alito's actual dissent in the case reads like a prosecutor's brief rather than a judicial opinion: The search was good, and even if it wasn't, a reasonable officer might have believed it was good -- and it's a fact that drug dealers use their kids to carry out their business and avoid prosecution.

The majority opinion, by the way, with which Alito disagreed, was written by that uber-liberal (sarcasm) former Judge and now Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff.