Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

Thursday, June 25, 2009

The Supreme Court Rules

Posted by Dominic Holden on Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:50 AM

There is a God:

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a school's strip search of an Arizona teenage girl accused of having prescription-strength ibuprofen was illegal.

In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said school officials violated the law with their search of Savana Redding in the rural eastern Arizona town of Safford.

Redding, who now attends college, was 13 when officials at Safford Middle School ordered her to remove her clothes and shake out her underwear because they were looking for pills — the equivalent of two Advils. The district bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs and the school was acting on a tip from another student.

There is also a devil: Clarence Thomas cast the lone dissenting vote in favor of strip searching children based on tips from other children (he was also the only judge who voted to strike down the Voting Rights Act earlier this week). He warned the court that, in issuing a ruling banning the search of a girl's underwear, it "announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school." In April, when the court heard arguments from attorneys in the case, it appeared they could rule the other way. (You can view the entire ruling in this .pdf file.)

Share via

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Newsvine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Email
 

Comments (33) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
sleepchamber 1
secrete.....
Posted by sleepchamber on June 25, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Carollani 2
It's also the last place you really want to keep your Advil.
Posted by Carollani http://www.carollani.com/wordpress on June 25, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Baconcat 3
I wonder if the rumors of Clarence Thomas' increasing dementia are true.
Posted by Baconcat on June 25, 2009 at 10:56 AM
emma's bee 4
@1: precisely. One might secrete a lot of things there--contraband the least of them!
Posted by emma's bee on June 25, 2009 at 10:59 AM
5
that's always the first place I look for my pills
Posted by m@tt on June 25, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Sir Vic 6
Maybe Justice Long Dong wouldn't be the lone voice in opinions if he actually interacted with the others during oral argument. Regardless of his judicial philosophy (which is obvoiusly not mainstream), he is a waste of a seat in SCOTUS, as he doesn't add anything to the collective decision process. What good is his "background" if he never says anything or asks any probing questions. I don't like the decisions Scalia comes up with, but at least he engages the court in discussion and adds to the process.
Posted by Sir Vic on June 25, 2009 at 11:01 AM
7
Clarence Thomas continues to be the biggest prick on the bench, Christ.
Posted by Nick on June 25, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Fnarf 8
Justice Thomas then retired to his chambers, where he tried, unsuccessfully once again, to jerk off to his favorite searching-schoolgirl's-panties scenario, and had to resort, once again, to the only that that gets him off anymore -- electrocuting a kitten with a lamp cord.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on June 25, 2009 at 11:05 AM
rob! 9
But won't those secretions melt the Advil?
Posted by rob! on June 25, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Fnarf 10
@6, Thomas's entire self-loathing career on the bench has been an exercise in proving, to himself and others, that affirmative action, which he benefited greatly from but opposes, is bad. "Look, affirmative action promotes the unworthy! Look at me!".
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on June 25, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Loveschild 11
I wonder what would his parents think about him voting to strike down the Voting Rights Act. I swear, that dude has to hate himself.
Posted by Loveschild http://www.samaritanspurse.org/index.php/articles/responding_to_haiti_earthquake/ on June 25, 2009 at 11:10 AM
12
daddy has a headache!
Posted by m@tt on June 25, 2009 at 11:18 AM
switzerblog 13
Hmm...the .pdf link doesn't work, but not sure I wanna plow through the whole thing to verify that a SC justice actually wrote "secrete" instead of "secret". Since he's a prick, I'll assume that he did and move on.
Posted by switzerblog on June 25, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Fnarf 14
Justice Thomas carries HIS contraband in the hole where his soul used to be.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on June 25, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Reverse Polarity 15
I'm only shocked that this had to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

If she was stashing a kilo of heroin up her cooter, the cops can still strip search her (with sufficient probable cause). There is no justification for school employees to strip search kids for any reason. Period.
Posted by Reverse Polarity on June 25, 2009 at 11:26 AM
The Amazing Jim 16
Hello Role Play!

and Fnarf wins the internets today. Here's $100 internet dollars.
Posted by The Amazing Jim http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=100000076496291&ref=profile on June 25, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Nora 17
Ban underwear in schools. Problem solved.
Posted by Nora on June 25, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Dominic Holden 18
@ 13) Link should be fixed now.
Posted by Dominic Holden on June 25, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Kat 19
@15 This. I have no idea why the school thought this would be OK without having the parents or at LEAST school lawyers present. That just seems like basic CYA. I was kind of shocked it went all the way to the Supreme Court, but at least they made the right decision.
Posted by Kat http://www.utopiatenation.com/blog on June 25, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Julie in Eugene 20
So, the ruling "announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school". Right, okay then. But, if it had gone the other way it would have announced the easiest way for a student to get revenge on another student. "Uh, Mr. Principal? I heard that Student-I-Hate brought some pot to school and is keeping it in her underwear."
Posted by Julie in Eugene on June 25, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 21
A good decision, but they only got it half right. They also ruled that she's not entitled to damages. Now that's just wrong.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on June 25, 2009 at 11:41 AM
22
"Secrete" contraband? GROSS!
Posted by Gillian Anderson on June 25, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Will in Seattle 23
"oh my god"

"what?"

"it's as if I heard a million pedophile police scream out in agony all at once ..."
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on June 25, 2009 at 11:48 AM
kim in portland 24
I'm agreeing with, Fifty-Two-Eighty.
Posted by kim in portland on June 25, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Vince 25
Clarence Thomas is a mean old pervert. He, no doubt, is a Republican favorite.
Posted by Vince on June 25, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Akbar Fazil 26
@11 Loveschild, I wonder what your parents as well would think of your stance against equality for all humans.

Or are they just ignorant bigots like yourself as well?
Posted by Akbar Fazil on June 25, 2009 at 12:04 PM
ams_ 27
If a school official tried to strip-search my child, they would get a visit from my good friend mr. baseball bat.
Posted by ams_ on June 25, 2009 at 12:19 PM
28
@6, Thomas has been pretty consistent with his belief that oral arguments are a waste of time, and I kind of agree with him, I mean, personally I would find it disconcerting if major constitutional issues were primarily decided by the persuasiveness of consuls oral abilities (that sounds really dirty, but it isn't), rather than interpretation of relevant case law and the Constitution. It makes for great theater, but shouldn't really hold much weight when the justices make their decision, IMO.
Posted by BaltiHimal on June 25, 2009 at 12:26 PM
SpireaX 29
I have a theory regarding Clarence Thomas: he's actually an extra-terrestrial alien masquerading as a human. Remeber, Men In Black the movie where they have the video screens of all these aliens masquerading as people like Michael Jackson, Sylverster Stallone, et al being monitored? Same thing.

He is to the FAR RIGHT of Roberts, Alito and sometimes even Scalia.
Posted by SpireaX http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=1364749062&ref=profile on June 25, 2009 at 12:32 PM
30
Who doesn't keep their advil in their pants?
What I found interesting were the initial thoughts thrown out by some of the male justices about how girls have to undress for gym class and so on and how it might not actually be that big of a deal. It was Ginsburg who had to explain what it is like to be a 13 year old girl going through puberty (when most girls are already pretty uncomfortable with their own existence and then you add a changing body to the situation, it is kind of a constant state of hell) and THEN being forced to strip down to your underwear in front of someone. (which would be pretty humiliating and down-right scary) She sort of hinted at the fact that having another female on the bench might help understand basic things like that.
Posted by au_gout on June 25, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Fnarf 31
@13, "secrete" is the correct word. It's a verb meaning "to conceal in a hiding place" (in addition to its other meaning "to produce, as a bodily fluid"). "Secret" makes no sense in its place in that sentence. Thomas is scum, and morally vacant, but his grammar is up to standard.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on June 25, 2009 at 1:08 PM
kresblamania 32
should have said "announces the safest place to secrete pedophiles in school"

Look! No consequences if you get called on it either.
Posted by kresblamania http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiI9Uc1uVtc on June 25, 2009 at 1:52 PM
33
Ha... another judicial 'joke' from Clancy. Or to quote Tracy Jordan: "WORDPLAY!"

I really don't like that guy (Thomas, not Tracy). He gives us self-respecting leches a bad name.
Posted by drewl on June 25, 2009 at 9:33 PM

Add a comment

 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use