Settle down, Clarence
Could you go over the testimony about the 13-year-old girl's panties one more time? Not sure I got it all. Image via Wikipedia
Big civil liberties news out of the nation’s highest court today, regarding the rights of students not to be strip-searched without a damn good reason. (Short of a concealed bomb small enough to fit down a student’s underwear, I would argue that there’s no such thing as a reason that’s damn good enough. But maybe that’s just me).
The Supreme Court said today that school officials acted illegally when they strip-searched of an Arizona teenage girl looking for prescription-strength ibuprofen.
In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said that school officials violated the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches when ordered Savana Redding to remove her clothes and shake out her underwear.
via Supreme Court rules strip search of Arizona teen illegal | Freep.com | Detroit Free Press.
But guess who the lone voice of dissent was on the entire nine-judge panel? Buried in the last graph, we find out it’s none other than — you guessed it — Justice Clarence “pubic-hair-on-my-coke-can” Thomas. In his written opinion, he argues that the majority’s decision “grants judges sweeping authority to second-guess the measures that these officials take to maintain discipline in their schools and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge.”
Wrong, Clarence. Schools still have plenty of authority to search students, thanks to the 1985 decision, New Jersey v. T.L.O., which determined that schools did not need probable cause to search their students, but only “reasonable suspicion.” That’s a pretty wide prerogative, and could include the authority to strip search in extreme cases, in case that’s what you’re worried about, pal.
But sometimes — especially when you’re talking about a search for prescription-strength ibuprofen — too far is too far. Eight of nine Supreme Court justices seem to agree there’s nothing wrong with setting a few limits of decency.
A Detroit Free Press reader jumps right in to point out what we’re all thinking: “interesting,” isn’t it, “that a guy once accused of sexual harassment doesn’t find it unreasonable to search in women’s underwear.” Of course, “women” isn’t whom we’re actually talking about here, since the decision pertains to someone who, at the time, was a 13-year-old girl.
These kinds of civil liberties issues are so often decided along partisan lines, that Thomas’ position can’t help but stand out. One shudders to imagine the thought process as Thomas pondered the testimony and imagined the scene. “Could you go over that bit about the 13-year-old’s panties one more time?”
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Great minds think alike Austin: I posted the following on my blog when I got the NY Times alert:
”
Supreme Court Rules Strip-Search of Girl Was Unconstitutional
Upholding a lower court decision, the Supreme Court ruled
that officials at an Arizona public school violated a
13-year-old student’s constitutional rights when they
subjected her to a search of her bra and underpants for
prescription and over-the-counter drugs that were forbidden
by school rules. But the court said that the officials should
be immune from liability in the case and that lower courts
should decide whether the school district could be held
liable.
Anyone care to guess who the one dissenter was?”
I don’t like to make mountains out of mole hills. Neither do I want to be libelous. But it’s pretty creepy, you gotta admit.
In response to another comment. See in context »Everything about Clarence is creepy, especially the fact that he holds a life time appointment.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m talking to Clarence,too. Stop by my site and see what I have to say.
The school officlas should be stripped searched in public