Quote :

"Shouldn't you be cheering this,"

My meaning might have been confusing on this one.

I don't care if Santa tosses out abortion pills during the Macy's parade. What I find strange is how it's OK to walk around high school with a not-entirely-safe Abortion Pill in her purse, but she can't take an Advil. Go figure.

4/24/2009 10:23:38 PM

Quote :

" In a ruling of interest to educators, parents and students across the country, the Supreme Court ruled, 8 to 1, on Thursday that the strip search of a 13-year-old Arizona girl by school officials who were looking for prescription-strength drugs violated her constitutional rights."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/us/politics/26scotus.html?_r=1

why wasn't it unanimous?
because Clarence Thomas is a creep....

Quote :

"He asserted that the majority’s finding second-guesses the measures that educators take to maintain discipline “and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge.”"

and for the understatement of the century

Quote :

"Justice Stevens wrote on Thursday that “it does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights of some magnitude.” "

6/25/2009 7:56:19 PM

I don't know if I would go so far as to say that a strip search of a 13-year-old-girl is unConstitutional. Why can't the SC just say "look, it was fucking wrong in this case, damnit!"?

6/25/2009 8:10:05 PM

yes, fucking Supreme Court, commenting on the constitutionality of their cases



that is to say, i'm really not worried about a "slippery slope" of the precedence being set that says "strip searching teenagers in public schools based on hearsay is clearly a violation of privacy rights granted in the Constitution"

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 8:19 PM. Reason : .]

6/25/2009 8:17:51 PM

>.<

you know what I mean, though. Did this case really need to say that you can't ever strip-search a 13-year-old girl? I don't think so. I think it was enough just to say "hey, this one case was fucking wrong. really? strip searching over Ibuprofen?"

6/25/2009 8:20:37 PM

OK, i agree with you in principle, that a S.C. decision for a topic like this shouldn't be necessary.

However, considering, an Arizona Circuit Court found the search was justified, and there was some ambiguity in previous court rulings, it sounds like they wanted to make the standard perfectly clear

Quote :

"Redding, or her representatives, alleged a violation of her 4th amendment rights. Suits were filed against both the school district and the individual school personnel who conducted the search. The Arizona Circuit Court, in summary judgment, found that the search was justified in that the evidence that the school administration had that the prohibited substances were on the girl was compelling. It further decided that carrying prohibited medications to school was an egregious violation that warranted the strip search and was necessary to ensure the safe school environment. New Jersey vs. TLO 469 US 325 (1985), the school search case law that dictates the standards of all school searches of students, says a search must be ‘justified’ and ‘reasonably related in scope to the circumstances requiring the interference’. The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th circuit found that the lower court had made a mistake and misapplied the standards of TLO, and that the search was a violation of the 4th amendment rights of the student. Further, they found that the administrator who had ordered the search could be held liable for the search independent of the school district. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. The following questions will be addressed: (supremecourtus.gov) 1. Whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits public school officials from conducting a search of a student suspected of possessing and distributing a prescription drug on campus in violation of school policy. 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit departed from established principles of qualified immunity in holding that a public school administrator may be liable in a damages lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for conducting a search of a student suspected of possessing and distributing a prescription drug on campus."

http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/redding-vs-stafford-unified-school-district/

6/25/2009 9:44:36 PM

Lumex must be disappointed... he indirectly said on the previous page that it is healthy for kids to comply to orders to strip by school officials.

6/25/2009 10:52:38 PM

Quote :

"because Clarence Thomas is a creep...."

Taking a step back from your paranoid fantasy-land where Thomas simply votes out of some crazed misanthropy, Thomas has some screwed-up views on in loco parentis which otherwise get in the way of some of his better calls.

Like, for instance, his siding with the majority today that allows for defendants' attorneys to cross-examine medical examiners testifying as experts in trials. Seems like basic Sixth Amendment stuff, no? Right to confront one's accusers?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR2009062504068.html

Well, 4 judges didn't think so. And oddly enough, it wasn't Scalia and Thomas in the minority. (In fact, the split went Scalia, Thomas, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsberg vs. Kennedy, Roberts, Breyer, and Alito).

6/25/2009 10:58:52 PM