DISQUS

GreenDreams · 5 months ago

perhaps there's some merit to the legal point, Dr. E, but there has to be a line of common decency. Stripping an adolescent girl of even her panties to look for Ibuprofen is completely outrageous, and the "evidence" against her, the accusation of another adolescent, is wholly inadequate IMO to justify it. I'm not sure an accusation from such a source should be acceptable to merit a "reasonable" search even if the allegation was that she had hard drugs. In such a case, I'd argue the parents and police should be called (they weren't), the case made to a judge, a warrant issued, and if the accusation proved false, serious action taken against the accuser for making a false report to police.

The drug in question was a single tablet of "prescription strength 400 mg ibuprofen" which is the same as two nonprescription Advil tablets. None was found on her body or in her possession.

archangel · 5 months ago

I agree with you entirely Green Dreams... and I appreciate your voice to defend the defenseless. As I inferred in the last para, there is often (sometimes it seems too often Green Dreams) a too broad gulf between absolute clarity of the law against such intrusion, ... and 'the interpretable' aspect of the same law.

My brush with law school taught me something my mind/heart sometimes struggles to entirely understand... and that is that interpretability of laws and evidences can be a boon to actual justice.

But sometimes, it doesnt seem so in reality, does it?

That the parents should have been called first? Absolutely. Unequivocally. It is no wonder the case came before the Supremes. I'd think that most any parent would be outraged beyond outraged and vow to take it to heaven's gates if need be.

One of the things that Justice Thomas did raise that I think is interesting, at least in the way I understood his meaning... he wanted, I think, in part, to depend on the school authorities to act as 'parents in place of the actual parents' ... but that seems to depend very much on the school admins having the same protective stance as a loving parent. That part did not meet my 'real world' bar.

On another note, I wonder what scenario actually plays at that particular school. I've been in schools that are like hell; there are few loving parents, few parents who would come if called even if you could find the tavern or crack joint they were using as their domecile, and the teachers are barely able to teach, and admins are unable to guide a vision for they are trying to get through ea day without a student or teacher being knifed or shot. I dont know which scene Justice Thomas had in mind. I tend to think it was the latter. Although for certain, the same occurs in schools with parents from other economic classes too, even though the neglect and disinterest in their children can be far better disguised.

So... I think still, the way that Justice Thomas's opinion was portrayed by many acorss blogosphere, deserved one more look. I hope it was a little edifying to see what he actually wrote.

Thanks GD
dr.e

stewartm0205 · 5 months ago

Clarence Thomas is an idiot. I read his dissent. The important question is would any of you want your 13yr old daughter strip searched because of an aspirin. I noted in the foot notes that there are rules governing body cavity searches so Clarence should understand that asking a young lady to strip to her underwear should not be done casually, that it better be a lot more serious than a school rule infraction.

DLS · 5 months ago

"hugely inaccurate portrayals of Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion about"

... everything is routine, and not the least surprising. Consider the portrayers.

archangel · 5 months ago

agreed that an important question re searching a child for a rx drug, or excessive OTC drug, Stewartm0205, and here in this case, it appears the legal focus was an issue relating to 4th amendment. The case was not a test of how to determine who ought be searched for what or via whichever means. And, your concerns are those of many other persons too, and no doubt in terms of parental rights et al, some day a case that treats of the constitutionality or not, of that matter, might be taken up by SCOTUS. In which case, this particular case in the affirmative will possibly stand as precedent.

thanks,
dr.e

archangel · 5 months ago

I think DLS, and thank you for the comment, that it's usually more useful to see what a person said in context, even if one still doesnt like it, or thinks it's just fine... than to do otherwise.

I wonder where so many journos learned to chop off 'the rest of the story.' I'm just an old writer, but if the storytellers amongst the elders chopped off half the ancient stories.... well, they'd no longer be considered by the tribe as able carriers of stories. They'd not be called cuenteras or cantadoras or taltos. They'd be called el ojo uno, one-eyed.

It seems we're created so that we all have our shares of one-eyedness. I keep trying to practice overcoming it when I can. I hope you do and others do too. Everyone can still have an opinion, but... within the light, instead of in the half-dark. Just my two cents worth DLS. Appreciate your common sense, always.

dr.e