- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
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.
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.
They didn't say that it's always an illegal search.
So your claim that he blindly follows Scalia is essentially ****. He doesn't vote with Scalia (or, more accurately, Scalia doesn't vote with him) any more than Alito votes with Roberts or Stevens votes with Breyer.
Just off the top of my head:
GOOD NEWS CLUB V. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-130.ZO.html
Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994).
14 PENN PLAZA LLC v. PYETT
And that's only of his opinions. He's at his best when he's concurring or dissenting to make a point.
I'm sure that if I bothered to go through this list, I'd find plenty more:
Supreme Court Collection: Opinions by Justice Thomas
What does this have to do with anything? Please don't tell me that you view one's level of interaction at oral arguments as indicative of anything beyond the desire to hear oneself speak.
Then why is it that you can't offer a remotely cogent criticism of him, and instead resort to the overplayed and completely uninformed "he just follows scalia, he doesn't talk, he's dumb, etc."?
I think this is fantastic news!
I hope the lower court holds the school liable. I really do.
Since the Supreme Court found that the school officials were wrong ... the lower court really has no choice.
No tolerance is absolutism. Absolutism nagates any opportunity to apply reason and most likely negates logic.No tolerance rules.
Your side lost
Accept it and move on.
This ruling was perfect. The notion that we must have absolutely clear, unyielding standards makes for unjust law enforcement. It is ridiculous that some of us think we can have black and white rules for society, and American jurisprudence has recognized this from its inception: The very language 'unreasonable search and seizure' insists on making the matter a judgement call... an inherently fuzzy proposition.
Life is a fuzzy proposition, and if we insist on 'black and white' rules to live by, then we should err on the side of liberty and not on the side of oppression. What the court reinforced, here, is that we can have effective law enforcement standards that can weigh the fuzzy circumstances of life. In so doing, they are attempting not to err on either the side of liberty or oppression. They are attempting to provide us with a Jurisprudence that reflects life.
While it may be a mistake to interpret the law so 'flexibly', the answer is NOT authoritarian measures. I would rather have kids in school with guns in their panties than allow school administrators to strip search students in the apparently 'critical' hunt for illicit ibuprofen.
They didn't say that it's always an illegal search.
Yes, they do. The issue of whether there's protection of these school officials by qualified immunity is subject to further dispute.
The problem is that you're placing the burden of making that complex decision on school administrators, who are not best suited to handle this.
That's not what the court said though - they made it clear that there were situations in which the school would be justified in strip searching students.
I don't agree that school administrators are so incapable of determining what is 'reasonable' that they will routinely overstep the bounds of the law. Especially if they seek to remain well inside the law and not try to push the bounds. However, if they are incapable, then please read my response to C. Thomas, below. The response is meshed with responding to your stuff as well.The problem is that you're placing the burden of making that complex decision on school administrators, who are not best suited to handle this.
I clearly acknowledged that the court said what you are asserting. My declaration was that IF (as Thomas claims) the law is too vague, and needs to be tightened up, we have two choices:That's not what the court said though - they made it clear that there were situations in which the school would be justified in strip searching students.
Whether or not their meaning was clear -- case law has been created. Everytime a case such as this arises attorneys for the plaintiff are going to use this case as a citation of general opinion of the highest court in the land.
Moreover, schools are NEVER justified in conducting strip searches of minor children.
The police are not even legally allowed to conduct a strip search. That duty falls to the jailers when a subject is incarcerated. That being said ... how can you even defend the actions of the school?
The school was wrong. The administrators were wrong. The administrators, the school, and the school district are all going to be paying out the ass for their absolute violation of that girl's rights.
Also ... you need to lay off the pro-righty, business can do no wrong attitude. They were wrong for doing what they did... you are wrong for agreeing with them and defending their deploreable actions.
I don't agree that school administrators are so incapable of determining what is 'reasonable' that they will routinely overstep the bounds of the law. Especially if they seek to remain well inside the law and not try to push the bounds. However, if they are incapable, then please read my response to C. Thomas, below. The response is meshed with responding to your stuff as well.
I clearly acknowledged that the court said what you are asserting. My declaration was that IF (as Thomas claims) the law is too vague, and needs to be tightened up, we have two choices:
I can't believe that he concluded the former. It IS outrageous.
- We could automatically default to "oh well, I guess we'll have to allow strip searches for anything the administrators wish and interpret unreasonable search and seizure right out of the constitution" (as Thomas does), OR
- We could default to "No way are we going to allow them to strip search at their discretion, so, since the law can't be made clear without serious encroachment on liberty, strip searches are hereby banned altogether as unconstitutional".
If we have reached a point where we can't handle our freedom responsibly, let our society crumble under the weight of that behavior. Don't use that irresponsibility as an excuse to encroach on freedom. Let the strain be its own teacher, and have patience and faith that society will (eventually) pressure us all to be decent citizens of high integrity.
No, they do not.
The SCOTUS ruled the search illegal.
Therefore, the lower court is required to make a judgment in accordance with the instuctions of the SCOTUS.
Except that's not what the court said. Did you read the opinion at all?
No, the administrators are not. Again, did you read the opinion at all?
Government-run public schools = businesses? Who knew.
Or, we could reach choice number 3: Schools continue to exercise their basic authority, but if they believe that a kid has drugs/guns/etc, they don't touch the kid and just call the cops instead.
Stop defending the school's nazi behavior. I know it's hard for you right-wingers ... but try anyway.
I disagree. The school IS responsible for its employees actions under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior. Therefore, the school and the district ARE going to be paying out.
Yet more evidence of the republican train of thought.
Schools ARE NOT businesses because they are funded by tax dollars. This makes them different than a business in to many ways to list.
I didn't claim otherwise.
The legality of the search is not at hand; whether individual administrators will be protected from damages now will be.
The school is liable. They are not above the law and they are not immune from damages.
I suspect the school district will be paying out.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?