Posted on 06/25/2009 10:44:20 AM PDT by blueminnesota
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Thursday school officials violated an Arizona teenage girl rights by strip-searching her for prescription-strength ibuprofen, saying U.S. educators should not force children to remove their clothing unless student safety is at risk.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Strange ruling — the decision was 8-1 that the search was illegal, and the dissenting judge was Clarence Thomas.
The overall decision was 6-3, because the 6-member majority ruled that the administrators were not LIABLE for damages from the strip search since the court was making a new rule that they couldn’t have known about; two judges disagreed and thought the administrators should be held liable (Thomas obviously didn’t because he thought the search was legal).
I’m looking forward to reading Thomas’ dissent, because I’m sure I disagree with him, but his reasoning always makes me think about things.
You said — Didn’t see this posted yet.
—
That could be because a lot of FReepers don’t like things that the ACLU pursues... LOL...
Yeah, I see it posted now. Looks like it came up a few minutes before mine.
I don’t know, with a daughter in public school this is a big issue for me. I have been following.
Geeze! It took a Supreme Court ruling to determine something so obvious to anyone with a shred of common sense? This wins a "Duh!" award!
The **primary** purpose of the government schools is to turn children into compliant slaves of the state. This was its purpose in the beginning and it continues today. This is why the government school defenders fear homeschooling. Homeschooling children are not subject to government indoctrination and will be the independent citizens who will be the leaders of liberty in the future.
Is there any way to get your daughter out of the government schools?
You said — I don’t know, with a daughter in public school this is a big issue for me. I have been following.
—
Don’t get me wrong..., I do agree with the ruling. I was making a funny comment about how FReepers may not always like who is pursuing certain rulings..., because of “association” doncha know... :-)
Not all laws and not all rulings and not all things pursued by liberals are *always* bad things... (maybe 90% or more are, but not all...LOL...).
I agree with you, Star Traveler.
Even a stopped Marxist clock is right twice a day.
You said — Even a stopped Marxist clock is right twice a day.
—
Well..., there ya go! ...
But, some diehards, say that it’s not even true twice a day... LOL...
I can’t afford good private schools and I doubt my own ability to teach her in all the subjects she will need as she gets older. I am looking at charter schools in the area. It’s difficult considering my tax dollars will go towards the schools no matter what.
It's all about control, isn't it? Conditioning our kids to accept anything the statists decree.
I think it's about time for pitchforks and torches, tar and feathers, Smith and Wesson!
When state or local officials are sued in federal court for money damages for unconstitutional action, the plaintiff must prove that (1) what the officials did was unconstitutional, and (2) that the law making what they did unconstitutional was previously clear (so that state officials don't have to pay out of their own pockets if the courts recognize a new right). This is called "qualified immunity". Here, the Court ruled 8-1 that strip-searching a student is illegal (only Thomas dissented), but ruled 6-3 that this had not previously been clear (lower courts had split on the issue).
The next time this happens, the school officials will be liable, because the illegality of a strip-search is now clearly settled.
Thank you for making it clear...
It makes ME think that he's gone crazy. It's more or less, "well, her backpack didn't have pills in it, and apparently it's a given that she had pills SOMEWHERE, so start the cavity search!"
Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, writing that “judges are not qualified to second-guess the best manner for maintaining quiet and order in the school environment”
now, I’m interested in seeing people’s opinion on that other ruling on Defendants Have Right To Confront Analysts of Forensics. was it posted?
The decision scrambled the court’s usual ideological lineup. Scalia was joined by the court’s most conservative member, Justice Clarence Thomas, as well as liberals John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Kennedy, who normally is the decision-maker when the two factions disagree, wrote the dissent for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.