| 0 |
Subject: Strip-Search Case to SCOTUS
Posted by: walk
- [181472714] Tue, Mar 24, 2009, 10:06
I was not sure where to put this, so I started a new thread. I'll nuke it if it's not worthy of stand-aloneness. I read this article as was somewhat stunned, and then saw about 300 comments. It's a polarizing issue. I also imagine my daughter being subject to this, and ask myself to what extent would I, as a parent, be really mad. I'd be really mad.
Strip-Search of Girl Tests Limit of School Policy |
| 1 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Tue, Mar 24, 2009, 10:30
|
Absolutely outrageous that support for such shocking authortarian policies still thrives in the social conservative mindset today.
|
| 2 | bibA
ID: 512112314 Tue, Mar 24, 2009, 10:44
|
Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules,” the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, “only that she was never caught.
That quote, to my mind, represents what is so objectionable with many American conservatives.
|
| 3 | walk
ID: 181472714 Tue, Mar 24, 2009, 11:11
|
bibA. Yes, that quote is so incredibly fukced up, I was stunned to read it. By definition, we are all guilty, we just have not been caught. George Orwell is in the house.
|
| 4 | Boxman
ID: 3821468 Tue, Mar 24, 2009, 12:11
|
This is truly sickening. If things are so bad that someone feels the need to strip search a minor at a school then either suspend/expel the minor or close the school down until things get under control.
A school administrator should never have this power. Only the police or military. If they thought the kid had drugs stashed in their body, then hold the kid until the police arrive and let them handle it.
I think this person just wanted to cop a feel and this was the alleged "legal" way to do it.
|
| 5 | Frick
ID: 3410551012 Tue, Mar 24, 2009, 12:48
|
From my reading of the story, a girl was caught with prescription Ibuprofen. She blamed another girl, the girl was strip-searched by two female school employees. She was allowed to keep her bra and panties on, but had to pull them away from her body.
The story does have a very 1984 feel, no evidence other than an accusation by another student.
|
| 6 | bibA
ID: 512112314 Tue, Mar 24, 2009, 12:52
|
It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court agrees with us. Can Scalia and Thomas find it within themselves to render in favor of the ACLU?
|
| 7 | Perm Dude
ID: 25215249 Tue, Mar 24, 2009, 12:57
|
It's a tough call: ACLU or public school teachers? Which one do they hate more?
|
| 8 | Baldwin
ID: 212502314 Tue, Mar 24, 2009, 13:23
|
"Prescription ibuprofin", good thing it wasn't spitballs. I think that is an automatic expulsion and jail time.
|
| 9 | Perm Dude
ID: 25215249 Tue, Mar 24, 2009, 14:16
|
That's such a crock as well. "Presciption ibuprofin" is just two regular ibuprofin in one tablet.
|
| 10 | Razor
ID: 371502414 Tue, Mar 24, 2009, 14:41
|
Was Baldwin serious? I really cannot tell any more. As PD said, prescription ibuprofen is essentially available over the counter if you just up the dosage. Who knows why prescriptions for it even exist. It's a vastly different drug than oxycodone, codeine and more serious drugs that are sometimes taken recreationally.
|
| 11 | Baldwin
ID: 212502314 Tue, Mar 24, 2009, 15:09
|
The politically correct weapon-free, drug-free zero tolerance zones are a crock.
They don't call it preparatory school for nothin.
It's a brave new world.
|
| 12 | Tree
ID: 61411921 Tue, Mar 24, 2009, 17:58
|
the is all the work of the globalists. did you people not read NewPlanStripSearch2000 from the UN???
|
| 13 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Tue, Mar 24, 2009, 18:17
|
Does anyone else know what Tree is getting at in #12?
|
| 14 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 014826271 Tue, Mar 24, 2009, 19:59
|
Absolutely outrageous that support for such shocking authortarian policies still thrives in the social conservative mindset today.
Where are y'all getting the "consevatives support overly intrusive public school actions" meme? THe people that establish school policies (and hire the lawyers that defend them) in California are decidely not conservative.
|
| 15 | Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Tue, Mar 24, 2009, 20:12
|
How was this Arizona school's no-tolerance policy established from CA?
|
| 16 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 014826271 Tue, Mar 24, 2009, 20:53
|
Strike CA replace with AZ - how did you determine that AZ school policy makers are "conservatives". I assume you have some facts I'm not aware of, I was hoping you'd share. In my expeience, it's conservatives that are most offended by creeping intrusiveness of public schools into privacy zones - and its liberals who deride them as paranoid when they take offense. You know that AZ is different?
|
| 17 | Perm Dude
ID: 72302414 Tue, Mar 24, 2009, 21:01
|
Well, Arizona is a *lot* more conservative than CA.
Presumably you threw out the California reference to demonstrate that liberal states would not have conservative school officials.
|
| 18 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 014826271 Tue, Mar 24, 2009, 21:15
|
I just skimmed ther article, saw it was a 9th circuit decision and assumed Cali, actually. My mistake - my real question was how MITH, and the posters following were able to discern that strip searching by public school officials was by product or was endorsed by a conservative mind set.
|
| 19 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 12:40
|
MBJ To be clear, I'm referring to social conservatives - many of whom surely otherwise align themselves with the political left and vote Democrat. Far more often than not, when I hear about these authoritaruan zero-tolerance policies, they are in places which tend socially conservative.
But more to the point, I associate the greater drug war (and it's authoritarianism run amok) with American social conservatism. It's always been promoted and expanded most effectively by appealing to social conservatives. I can't think of any political candidates for any level of office who sought to bolster their socially liberal credentials by promoting excessive authoritarian anti-controlled substance measures. Can you?
|
| 20 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Fri, Jun 26, 2009, 00:53
|
SCOTUS rules that strip search was unconstitutional
|
| 21 | Seattle Zen
ID: 65562615 Fri, Jun 26, 2009, 16:58
|
Oh, it's rare, but once every blue moon Antonin Scalia gets one right:
Crime laboratory reports may not be used against criminal defendants at trial unless the analysts responsible for creating them give testimony and subject themselves to cross-examination
The two sides differed sharply about the practical consequences of requiring testimony from crime laboratory analysts. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the four dissenters, said Philadelphia’s 18 drug analysts will now each be required to testify in more than 69 trials next year, and Cleveland’s six drug analysts in 117 trials each.
Noting that 500 employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation laboratory in Quantico, Va., conduct more than a million scientific tests each year, Justice Kennedy wrote, “The court’s decision means that before any of those million tests reaches a jury, at least one of the laboratory’s analysts must board a plane, find his or her way to an unfamiliar courthouse and sit there waiting to read aloud notes made months ago.”
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, scoffed at those “back-of-the-envelope calculations.”
In any event, he added, the court is not entitled to ignore even an unwise constitutional command for reasons of convenience.
“The confrontation clause may make the prosecution of criminals more burdensome, but that is equally true of the right to trial by jury and the privilege against self-incrimination,” Justice Scalia wrote.
“The sky will not fall after today’s decision,” he added. Here, here! In light of what was revealed here in WA last year - more than one lab tech would sign off on test of simulator solutions for Breathalyzer machines when in fact they did not test them at all, Scalia is right, lets us cross examine those liars!
|
| 22 | Boldwin
ID: 25282121 Fri, Jun 26, 2009, 18:34
|
Yup, I regularly get wind of highly respected crime labs being unexceptably helpful to the prosecution.
|
| 23 | Seattle Zen
ID: 37243012 Sun, Aug 30, 2009, 13:24
|
Turning this into the SCOTUS thread: SCOTUS to rehear oral arguments in Hillary, the Movie case.
The Supreme Court will cut short its summer break in early September to hear a new argument in a momentous case that could transform the way political campaigns are conducted. The case, which arises from a minor political documentary called “Hillary: The Movie,” seemed an oddity when it was first argued in March. Just six months later, it has turned into a juggernaut with the potential to shatter a century-long understanding about the government’s ability to bar corporations from spending money to support political candidates. The case has also deepened a profound split among liberals, dividing those who view government regulation of political speech as an affront to the First Amendment from those who believe that unlimited corporate campaign spending is a threat to democracy. This is a rare instance where I disagree with the ACLU, I believe that this movie is absolutely campaign spending and needs to follow the rules. Could be a monumental decision.
|
| 24 | Khahan
ID: 54138190 Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 19:22
|
Wasn't sure where to put this, but considering SZ's post 23, this post seems even more appropriate.
Citizens United explanation given. Alito gives a rather compelling argument in favor of the Citizen's United ruling. Doesn't make me like it anymore. Doesn't make me think its a good thing or sway me that they should have. But I do understand their reasoning now, at least.
|
| 25 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 19:36
|
nice find Khahan. I too dislike the decision hugely, but Alito makes a valid point when he asks why should media corporations be allowed to speak, and not another corporate entity? That lone question, makes opposition difficult.
|
| 26 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3603123 Sun, Nov 18, 2012, 12:37
|
Could be a monumental decision.
Whoa, sure was...
|
| 27 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Sun, Nov 18, 2012, 12:55
|
indeed it was. Good call Zen.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: Strip-Search Case to SCOTUS
|