After she refused a date he fired her for supposedly lackluster work.

Sesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
Sesli kent
SesliChat
SesliSohbet

It would be real nice, if someone with authority explained the difference between violating a policy and committing a crime and sent that information to all school administrators. There appears to be an assumption that they can criminalize violations of policy and take police action. They aren’t cops. A child bringing an ibuprofen to school is not a criminal. School administrators aren’t doctors either. I see no reason for them to remove a child’s clothing—not even the school nurse has a reason to remove a child’s clothing.

>>The Angry Republican Says:

>>>>THEREFORE…I CAN STRIP SEARCH YOUR KID ANY DAMN TIME I WANT IN SCHOOL ON ANYBODY’S ACCUSATION WITH NO LIABILITY FOR THE CRIME…

>>No, now that they’ve ruled on it, that’s illegal. That’s the point of ruling on it.

There were a range of facts which were very important – the court did not rule that all strip searches are illegal in schools, but that on these facts, the search in this case was unconstitutional.

It might well have gone the other way if there had been more concrete accusations or if the alleged drugs had been “street drugs.”

BTW, this was one area where Thomas made some (although not complete, IMHO) sense – he argued that there shouldn’t be different standards depending on the nature of the illegal drugs (and yes, the accusation was about alleged illegally possessed prescription drugs.)

That is, if the facts had been all the same except the allegations said she had had oxycontin, or PCP, say, would the strip search have been constitutional under the majority’s opinion?

If the answer is yes, are administrators given adequate guidance as to which drugs are “dangerous” enough to warrant a strip search?

In this case, the title reflects who is bringing the latest appeal – the school district was appealing from the court of appeals ruling

It does not reflect who originally sued whom: which here was the parents on behalf of the student suing the school district and the 3 main school officials who “participated.”

BTW, the opinion can be read/DL’d here And don’t mistake the syllabus/summary at the beginning of the case report with the actual pinion, which begins on p 5 pf te .pdf.

Isn’t pedophilia a criminal offense?

Well, let’s go look at the title of the case: SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT #1 ET AL. v. REDDING.

Nope, that’s a civil suit. Interesting thing there, they were suing the kid! Talk about some persecution.

.

rjw.progressive Says:

IOW, Thomas thinks strip searches are routine!

Well, duh. He’s Clarence Thomas.

.

The Angry Republican Says:

THEREFORE…I CAN STRIP SEARCH YOUR KID ANY DAMN TIME I WANT IN SCHOOL ON ANYBODY’S ACCUSATION WITH NO LIABILITY FOR THE CRIME…

No, now that they’ve ruled on it, that’s illegal. That’s the point of ruling on it.

They didn’t say the school has no liability, just the individuals who actually did the search.

However, notice is now given from here on that school administrators who conduct strip searches are going to be held personally liable unless they can show a bona fide safety issue to justify the search.

They agreed it was illegal but then went on to say the school has NO LIBILITY due to the search…

THEREFORE…I CAN STRIP SEARCH YOUR KID ANY DAMN TIME I WANT IN SCHOOL ON ANYBODY’S ACCUSATION WITH NO LIABILITY FOR THE CRIME…

This is a crap decision.
The entire SC needs to be removed and replaced….

“Restoring the common-law doctrine of in loco parentis would not, however, leave public schools entirely free to impose any rule they choose. “If parents do not like the rules imposed by those schools, they can seek redress in school boards or legislatures; they can send their children to private schools or home school them; or they can simply move.” See Morse, 551 U. S., at 419 (THOMAS, J., concurring).” [Emphasis added]

BTW, Thomas cites himself several times as authority for the positions hes asserting!

“The perils of judicial policymaking inherent in applying Fourth Amendment protections to public schools counsel in favor of a return to the understanding that existed in this Nation’s first public schools, which gave teachers discretion to craft the rules needed to carry out the disciplinary responsibilities delegated to them by parents.” [Emphasis added]

Can’t wait until a school caning case goes his way.

Wonder if he feels the same way about slavery?

Which makes perfect sense since he’s a convert to Catholicism. Worse yet, he’s a member of Opus Dei, a seriously crazy right wing sect of Catholicism.

1: The qualified immunity arises from the fact/conclusion that the unconstitutionality of the search wasn’t clear under existing law.

2: Thomas’ basic argument: “It also grants judges sweeping authority to second-guess the measures that these officials take to maintain discipline in their schools and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge. This deep intrusion into the administration of public schools exemplifies why the Court should return to the common-law doctrine of in loco parentis under which “the judiciary was reluctant to interfere in the routine business of school administration, allowing schools and teachers to set and enforce rules and to maintain order.” [Emphasis added]

IOW, Thomas thinks strip searches are routine!

BTW: search and seizure cases (as well as other constitutional issues) require judges to exercise their empathy in determining whether a search is reasonably within a person’s “expectation of privacy.”

In light of their Sotomayor hysteria, many Republicans, it seems, don’t want judges who can actually do the job we give them…..

PEACE

The US is rapidly becoming a nation of imbecilic interpretations of asinine laws designed to punish ‘offenders’ who dare to defy the morality Gestapo.

Why shouldn’t that girl and her family be able to sue the fertilizer out of that school, the individuals responsible, and the school board that instituted this ridiculous policy and who are all guilty of breach of trust at the very least?

Thanks again Justice Thomas for your enlightened views on what constitutes abuse of power; I wonder if you would hold the same opinion if that had been your daughter humiliated in this obscene fashion?