The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in Supreme Court on Strip Searches in Schools

Re: Supreme Court on Strip Searches in Schools

DLS — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:37:10 -0000

"ignore the in loco parentis arguments put forth by Thomas in favor of slipping in a snickering Oprahism. You didn&#39t happen to READ his dissent, did you? Nah, why do that, when you can quote a blogger??"

It was a middle-school-level tactic, from appearances (content _and_ style). Duly noted.

Re: Supreme Court on Strip Searches in Schools

DLS — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:37:10 -0000

"ignore the in loco parentis arguments put forth by Thomas in favor of slipping in a snickering Oprahism. You didn't happen to READ his dissent, did you? Nah, why do that, when you can quote a blogger??"

It was a middle-school-level tactic, from appearances (content _and_ style). Duly noted.

Re: Supreme Court on Strip Searches in Schools

balthar — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:00:35 -0000

Good, strong reporting there, Bridget: completely ignore the in loco parentis arguments put forth by Thomas in favor of slipping in a snickering Oprahism. You didn&#39t happen to READ his dissent, did you? Nah, why do that, when you can quote a blogger??

And, no, I didn&#39t find his argument compelling, but I at least read it and thought about it (I have two middle-school daughters, myself, and I&#39m pleased with the ruling).

BTW, if you can steer yourself away from genital slang, give a quick cheer to Thomas&#39 concurrence with the 5-4 majority in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, which may save many more lives than Safford U.S.D. #1 v. Redding. A friendly suggestion, in the interest of, you know, being moderate.

Re: Supreme Court on Strip Searches in Schools

balthar — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:00:35 -0000

Good, strong reporting there, Bridget: completely ignore the in loco parentis arguments put forth by Thomas in favor of slipping in a snickering Oprahism. You didn't happen to READ his dissent, did you? Nah, why do that, when you can quote a blogger??

And, no, I didn't find his argument compelling, but I at least read it and thought about it (I have two middle-school daughters, myself, and I'm pleased with the ruling).

BTW, if you can steer yourself away from genital slang, give a quick cheer to Thomas' concurrence with the 5-4 majority in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, which may save many more lives than Safford U.S.D. #1 v. Redding. A friendly suggestion, in the interest of, you know, being moderate.

Re: Supreme Court on Strip Searches in Schools

StockBoySF — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:32:45 -0000

GreenDreams, LOL! Yes. And since you said that I really can&#39t add anything else to the conversation. Perfect and sums it up very nicely.

Re: Supreme Court on Strip Searches in Schools

crowepps — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:30:51 -0000

It&#39s interesting that Justice Thomas didn&#39t recognize that the school failing to call the parents was an attack on "parental rights".

Re: Supreme Court on Strip Searches in Schools

GreenDreams — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:06:40 -0000

Of course Justice Thomas disagreed. Pervert.

Re: Supreme Court on Strip Searches in Schools

StockBoySF — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:32:45 -0000

GreenDreams, LOL! Yes. And since you said that I really can't add anything else to the conversation. Perfect and sums it up very nicely.

Re: Supreme Court on Strip Searches in Schools

crowepps — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:30:51 -0000

It's interesting that Justice Thomas didn't recognize that the school failing to call the parents was an attack on "parental rights".

Re: Supreme Court on Strip Searches in Schools

GreenDreams — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:06:40 -0000

Of course Justice Thomas disagreed. Pervert.