The Supreme Court said today that school officials acted illegally when they strip-searched an Arizona teenage girl looking for prescription-strength ibuprofen in her panties, but not good ole Clarence.
In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said that school officials violated the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches when they ordered Savana Redding to remove her clothes and shake out her underwear.
Who was the lone voice of dissent on the entire nine-judge panel? Buried in the last graph, we find out it’s none other than — you guessed it — Justice Clarence “pubic-hair-on-my-coke-can” Thomas. In his written opinion, he argues that the majority’s decision “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.” Yeah, strip searching teenaged girls is a terrific disciplinary tool.
This perverted clown, Thomas, has been sitting on the Supreme Court bench far too long. He got there originally despite well-substantiated claims by a female lawyer, Anita Hill, that old Clarence had sexually harassed her in the work place when he was her supervisor. But he was the "other Bush's" singular contribution to the court.
Since then, Clarence has been on the side of pornographers, molesters and sex freaks in numerous cases decided by the High Court. He should have been censured by his colleagues long ago but they lack the intestinal fortitude. And Scalia, Rehnquist, and the other hard line right wingers on the court liked to keep him around for a sure supporting vote for anything the conservatives wanted to do, like (s)electing George W. Bush as President in 2000.
But sometimes — especially when you’re talking about a search for something as horrifying as prescription-strength ibuprofen — too far is too far. Eight of nine Supreme Court justices seem to agree there’s nothing wrong with setting a few limits of decency on the behavior of school officials.
A Detroit Free Press reader jumps right in to point out what we’re all thinking: “interesting,” isn’t it, “that a guy once accused of sexual harassment doesn’t find it unreasonable to search in women’s underwear.” Of course, “women” isn’t whom we’re actually talking about here, since the decision pertains to someone who, at the time, was a 13-year-old girl.
These kinds of civil liberties issues are so often decided along partisan lines, that Thomas’ position can’t help but stand out. One shudders to imagine the thought process as Thomas pondered the testimony and imagined the scene. “Could you go over that bit about the 13-year-old’s panties one more time?”
No comments:
Post a Comment