• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Top court rules strip search of teen was illegal

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,937
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I would have suggested simply not cooperating with the school officials. The punishment for disobeying authority is likely better than getting strip searched.

Good to see that the court did the right thing in the end. Thomas may be correct in that kids can get away with hiding things, but that is an acceptable price to pay.

I agree, but we're not 13, either. But, on the other hand, it would depend on who was conducting the search as to whether, or not I would be a willing participant :lol:
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
No, we're not. An illegal search is an illegal search. It doesn't matter what they're searching for.

Contrary to popular belief, the court did not say that schools cannot perform strip searches. All that they said was that in this scenario, where there was no reason to believe that the drug was hidden in the underwear and where the drug was not so powerful or in such large quantities as to be eminently dangerous, it was not justified.

In so doing, they created another O'Connor-esque balancing test that creates different and opaque standards for whether or not schools are justified in searching "outer clothing" v. "inner clothing." Great.

Thomas is a nazi retard.

Proving once again what an idiot Thomas is. The only thing shocking here is that he actually broke from Scalia.

I would really appreciate it if either one of you could explain what it is about Thomas's reasoning that you take issue with.

What was Thomas's opinion? Why dissent on this?

You can read it here:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-479.pdf

Thomas's point is eminently reasonable. He argues that the standards that the court is creating are far too vague for the average school official to interpret them. This was an outcome driven analysis, and will do nothing to create clearer standards for the future. I said it when the case when up, and I'll say it again.

****ty facts make ****ty law.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Would all those who think this is a wonderful ruling feel the same way if they'd found a gun instead of a bottle of Ibuprofin?

Better Example:

How about if she had five dozen condoms?

They'd applaud her.
 

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,657
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I can't wait to see how much the parents get in the settlement because the School District can't afford to go to court over this. Only the idiots that passed the stupid zero tolerance rules around the country think this policy was sane, and it is that policy that led to the foolish strip search in the first place. The person who ordered it and who ever carried it out are lucky to have all their teeth. When women were women and men were men an old fashion royal A$$ whipping would come to those responsible. Good for the court for standing up to the ignorant school people.
 
Last edited:

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Proving once again what an idiot Thomas is. The only thing shocking here is that he actually broke from Scalia.

Thomas has a history of ruling wrongly on school authority issues. If I recall, he ruled wrongly on the ability of the school gestapo to search student lockers without a warrant.

He also ruled, I believe, against the student in Alaska who, off school property, help up signs advocating legalization of marijuana.

Thomas is a damn excellent judge in most cases, and beyond doubt the country would be better to have three more of him on the bench in place of Breyer, Souter, and Ginsberg (or the Latina Vagina). Never forget who supported the Kelo vs New London decision.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
109,421
Reaction score
54,375
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
****ty facts make ****ty law.

What do you think the Supreme Court should have done? Would they have been better off not hearing this case?
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
What do you think the Supreme Court should have done? Would they have been better off not hearing this case?

Absolutely. The Supreme Court's job is not to reach just outcomes, it's to create clear and logical law for the lower courts to apply. They may have given some girl who was treated badly some compensation here, but this certainly did not deserve to be one of the 80 cases heard this year.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
109,421
Reaction score
54,375
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Absolutely. The Supreme Court's job is not to reach just outcomes, it's to create clear and logical law for the lower courts to apply. They may have given some girl who was treated badly some compensation here, but this certainly did not deserve to be one of the 80 cases heard this year.

That makes alot of sense. You need to convert to liberalism, we need your type.
 

joko104

Banned
Suspended
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,403
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think this is fantastic news!



I hope the lower court holds the school liable. I really do.

Why? Why should taxpayers pay for this? I could see holding the people involved liable. But why the property tax payers?
 

Agnapostate

Banned
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
5,497
Reaction score
912
Location
Between Hollywood and Compton.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I wasn't surprised to see Thomas ruling the way he did. He supports overturning Tinker v. Des Moines and opposes student constitutional rights altogether. He's likely the most reactionary element on the SCOTUS.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I wasn't surprised to see Thomas ruling the way he did. He supports overturning Tinker v. Des Moines and opposes student constitutional rights altogether. He's likely the most reactionary element on the SCOTUS.

And yet the most intellectually honest, regardless of whether you agree with him or not.
 

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I would really appreciate it if either one of you could explain what it is about Thomas's reasoning that you take issue with.

Easily....except that's just it....Thomas doesn't really reason. Hasn't really written any major opinion since he's been on the court. Usually just concurs with Scalia.
 

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Thomas has a history of ruling wrongly on school authority issues. If I recall, he ruled wrongly on the ability of the school gestapo to search student lockers without a warrant.

He also ruled, I believe, against the student in Alaska who, off school property, help up signs advocating legalization of marijuana.

Thomas is a damn excellent judge in most cases, and beyond doubt the country would be better to have three more of him on the bench in place of Breyer, Souter, and Ginsberg (or the Latina Vagina). Never forget who supported the Kelo vs New London decision.

You are clearly insane! The US would be better with three more judges without a brain...who can't think for themselves and simply wait to see how Scalia rules before they can form an opinion? I think not...We'd have 1/2 a Supreme Court incapable of authoring a single significant ruling....but thanks for playing!
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Easily....except that's just it....Thomas doesn't really reason. Hasn't really written any major opinion since he's been on the court. Usually just concurs with Scalia.

This is a relatively common misconception among those who haven't bothered to educate themselves about the Justices. I hope this clears things up for you:

Clarence Thomas has borne some of the most vitriolic personal attacks in Supreme Court history. But the persistent stereotypes about his views on the law and subordinate role on the court are equally offensive--and demonstrably false. An extensive documentary record shows that Justice Thomas has been a significant force in shaping the direction and decisions of the court for the past 15 years.

That's not the standard storyline. Immediately upon his arrival at the court, Justice Thomas was savaged by court-watchers as Antonin Scalia's dutiful apprentice, blindly following his mentor's lead. It's a grossly inaccurate portrayal, imbued with politically incorrect innuendo, as documents and notes from Justice Thomas's very first days on the court conclusively show. Far from being a Scalia lackey, the rookie jurist made clear to the other justices that he was willing to be the solo dissenter, sending a strong signal that he would not moderate his opinions for the sake of comity. By his second week on the bench, he was staking out bold positions in the private conferences where justices vote on cases. If either justice changed his mind to side with the other that year, it was Justice Scalia joining Justice Thomas, not the other way around.

Much of the documentary evidence for this comes from the papers of Justice Harry Blackmun, who recorded the justices' votes and took detailed notes explaining their views. I came across vivid proof while reading the papers as part of my research for a book about how the Rehnquist Court--a court with seven justices appointed by Republican presidents--evolved into an ideological and legal disappointment for conservatives.

Justice Thomas's first term was especially interesting. He replaced legendary liberal icon Thurgood Marshall, and joined the court just a year after David Souter took William Brennan's seat. There appeared to be a solid conservative majority, with the court poised to finally dismember the liberal legacy of the Warren Court. But that year it instead lurched inexplicably to the left--even putting Roe v. Wade on more solid ground.

Justice Thomas's first year on the job brought to life the adage that a new justice makes a new court. His entry didn't merely change the vote of the liberal justice he replaced. It turned the chessboard around entirely, rearranging ideological alliances. Justice Thomas acted as a catalyst in different ways, shoring up conservative positions in some cases and spurring others--the moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in particular--to realign themselves into new voting blocs.

Consider a criminal case argued during Justice Thomas's first week. It concerned a thief's effort to get out of a Louisiana mental institution and the state's desire to keep him there. Eight justices voted to side with the thief. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that although it "may make eminent sense as a policy matter" to let the criminal out of the mental institution, nothing in the Constitution required "the states to conform to the policy preferences of federal judges."

After he sent his dissenting opinion to the other justices, as is custom, Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Kennedy changed their votes. The case ended up 5-4.


Justice Thomas's dissents persuaded Justice Scalia to change his mind several times that year. Even in Hudson v. McMillan, the case that prompted the New York Times to infamously label Justice Thomas the "youngest, cruelest justice," he was again, initially, the lone dissenter. Justice Scalia changed his vote after he read Justice Thomas's dissent, which said a prison inmate beaten by guards had several options for redress--but not under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment."

From the beginning, Justice Thomas was an independent voice. His brutal confirmation hearings only enforced his autonomy, making him impervious to criticism from the media and liberal law professors. He'd told his story, and no one listened. From then on, he did not care what they said about him.

Clarence Thomas, for example, is the only justice who rarely asks questions at oral arguments. One reason is that he thinks his colleagues talk too much from the bench, and he prefers to let the lawyers explain their case with fewer interruptions. But his silence is sometimes interpreted as a lack of interest, and friends have begged him to ask a few questions to dispel those suggestions. He refuses to do it. "They have no credibility," he says of critics. "I am free to live up to my oath."

But the forcefulness and clarity of Justice Thomas's views, coupled with wrongheaded depictions of him doing Justice Scalia's bidding, created an internal dynamic that caused the court to make an unexpected turn in his first year. Justice O'Connor--who sought ideological balance--moved to the left. With the addition of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, the court now is poised to finally fulfill the hopes of the conservative movement. As George W. Bush told his legal advisers early in his presidency, he wanted justices in "the mold of Thomas and Scalia." Interestingly, on President Bush's marquee, Justice Thomas got top billing.

It's a shame that so many love to smear Justice Thomas despite knowing nothing about his jurisprudence or role on the court.
 

Smoke[MaxX]

Active member
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
446
Reaction score
91
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, we're not. An illegal search is an illegal search. It doesn't matter what they're searching for.

You're right, an illegal search is an illegal search. Doesn't really matter what they find because it was illegal. Let's say you know a guy's a rapist but can't prove it. You break into his house and find panties of the victim with his semen on it. Guess what, you can't use that as evidence now and the rapist goes free. Same concept here. Illegal searches help nobody because you have to break the law in the first place.

Second, as for "finding a gun" I'm gonna throw up a straw-man because it seems like the thing to do here and I feel like it would be a wasted opportunity not to. "Blah blah blah, 2nd Amendment, blah blah blah, right to bear arms... what if she shot a guy who was trying to rape a child with her illegal gun... hypothetical hypothetical blah blah blah.
 

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's a shame that so many love to smear Justice Thomas despite knowing nothing about his jurisprudence or role on the court.

So....he casts a dissenting vote away from Scalia occassionally....so what?

The man hasn't authored a single opinion of significance in the decades that he has been on the court. He is well known for not engaging in questioning during hearings, despite the fact that he may have done so on a couple of ocassions.

I work in the legal profession....I read Supreme Court opinions daily......so your criticism that somehow I haven't studied Thomas and know what I am talking about is unfounded.
 

DarkWizard12

Sir Poop A lot
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
13,316
Reaction score
2,788
Location
Tyler TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
I work in the legal profession....I read Supreme Court opinions daily......so your criticism that somehow I haven't studied Thomas and know what I am talking about is unfounded.
If you have studied Scalia, it's heavily clouded. Tell me, why is your word more credible than JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG ?
 
Top Bottom