SCOTUS does good - strip search violated rights

[Ravi]

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.

The officials in Safford, Ariz., would have been justified in 2003 had they limited their search to the backpack and outer clothing of Savana Redding, who was in the eighth grade at the time, the court ruled. But in searching her undergarments, they want too far and violated her Fourth Amendment privacy rights, the justices said.

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

 

[Nik]

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.

The officials in Safford, Ariz., would have been justified in 2003 had they limited their search to the backpack and outer clothing of Savana Redding, who was in the eighth grade at the time, the court ruled. But in searching her undergarments, they want too far and violated her Fourth Amendment privacy rights, the justices said.

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

Makes sense. When I saw it was 8-1, I knew immediatelly who the one was. Thomas . That man is really an ass.

 

[Ravi]

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.

The officials in Safford, Ariz., would have been justified in 2003 had they limited their search to the backpack and outer clothing of Savana Redding, who was in the eighth grade at the time, the court ruled. But in searching her undergarments, they want too far and violated her Fourth Amendment privacy rights, the justices said.

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

Makes sense. When I saw it was 8-1, I knew immediatelly who the one was. Thomas . That man is really an ass.

Or a lech. I think when he retires he's going to be an middle school crossing guard.

 

[Nik]

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

Makes sense. When I saw it was 8-1, I knew immediatelly who the one was. Thomas . That man is really an ass.

Or a lech. I think when he retires he's going to be an middle school crossing guard.

Probably. I hope he gets arrested and thrown in jail with no trial. See what he thinks of a powerful executive then.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Makes sense. When I saw it was 8-1, I knew immediatelly who the one was. Thomas . That man is really an ass.

Or a lech. I think when he retires he's going to be an middle school crossing guard.

Probably. I hope he gets arrested and thrown in jail with no trial. See what he thinks of a powerful executive then.

Well except our Government can not do that now anyway.

 

[Ravi]

Or a lech. I think when he retires he's going to be an middle school crossing guard.

Probably. I hope he gets arrested and thrown in jail with no trial. See what he thinks of a powerful executive then.

Well except our Government can not do that now anyway.

What, are you joking? If the Government thinks, or pretends to think, you are a terrorist they most certainly can.

 

[Agnapostate]

Yeah, I wasn't surprised to see Thomas ruling this way. He supports the overturn of Tinker v. Des Moines and opposed student constitutional rights altogether. He's probably the most reactionary element on the SCOTUS.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Probably. I hope he gets arrested and thrown in jail with no trial. See what he thinks of a powerful executive then.

Well except our Government can not do that now anyway.

What, are you joking? If the Government thinks, or pretends to think, you are a terrorist they most certainly can.

Wrong again DUMB ASS. American citizens can not be locked up without the courts involved. The Government already tried that and lost, keep up with reality dip stick.

 

[foggedinn]

Well except our Government can not do that now anyway.

What, are you joking? If the Government thinks, or pretends to think, you are a terrorist they most certainly can.

Wrong again DUMB ASS. American citizens can not be locked up without the courts involved. The Government already tried that and lost, keep up with reality dip stick.

Yea, they tried it and got slapped down. The problem is they will try it again and get slapped down again. Then they will try it again and get slapped down again. Then they will try it again and get slapped down again. etc. etc. etc........

There are effectively no sanctions against any law enforcement agency for carrying on this sort of thing indefinitely.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What, are you joking? If the Government thinks, or pretends to think, you are a terrorist they most certainly can.

Wrong again DUMB ASS. American citizens can not be locked up without the courts involved. The Government already tried that and lost, keep up with reality dip stick.

Yea, they tried it and got slapped down. The problem is they will try it again and get slapped down again. Then they will try it again and get slapped down again. Then they will try it again and get slapped down again. etc. etc. etc........

There are effectively no sanctions against any law enforcement agency for carrying on this sort of thing indefinitely.

Provide evidence that since the Court ruled they could not hold whats his name indefinitely that

A) they did not then assign him a Lawyer and give him a trial date within the constructs of the law

AND

B) that any other American has been held in a similar manner since the ruling.


Or just admit you are full of horse shit.

 

[Nik]

Or a lech. I think when he retires he's going to be an middle school crossing guard.

Probably. I hope he gets arrested and thrown in jail with no trial. See what he thinks of a powerful executive then.

Well except our Government can not do that now anyway.

He has said that it should be able too.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

The officials in Safford, Ariz., would have been justified in 2003 had they limited their search to the backpack and outer clothing of Savana Redding, who was in the eighth grade at the time, the court ruled. But in searching her undergarments, they want too far and violated her Fourth Amendment privacy rights, the justices said.

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

I agree. A massive over-reach by the school. Good decision by the court.

Being the lone dissenter, I am sure it pissed Thomas off that he had to get off his lazy ass and write a dissent.

 

[geauxtohell]

Yeah, I wasn't surprised to see Thomas ruling this way. He supports the overturn of Tinker v. Des Moines and opposed student constitutional rights altogether. He's probably the most reactionary element on the SCOTUS.

Some would say "reactionary" others would say "dense".

I don't agree with Scalia, but that man can write some awesome opinions.

Thomas is known for basically occupying a seat on the SCOTUS and a vote. They don't call him the "silent justice" for nothing.

He won't leave any sort of legacy for his time on the court.

 

[editec]

Good for them.

 

[foggedinn]

Wrong again DUMB ASS. American citizens can not be locked up without the courts involved. The Government already tried that and lost, keep up with reality dip stick.

Yea, they tried it and got slapped down. The problem is they will try it again and get slapped down again. Then they will try it again and get slapped down again. Then they will try it again and get slapped down again. etc. etc. etc........

There are effectively no sanctions against any law enforcement agency for carrying on this sort of thing indefinitely.

Provide evidence that since the Court ruled they could not hold whats his name indefinitely that

A) they did not then assign him a Lawyer and give him a trial date within the constructs of the law

AND

B) that any other American has been held in a similar manner since the ruling.


Or just admit you are full of horse shit.

Perhaps you misunderstand. A witness bares no burden of proof and need provide no evidence.

Or perhaps you just like telling witnesses that they are full of shit. Typical deceiver mode of operation.