finknottle Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 The egregious nature of this case amplifies Thomas's stupidity. She sat for hours and the school never called her parents or the cops. Then they did the search. It illustrates the stupidity of the school officials. But last time I checked, stupidity and incompetance were not unconstitutional.
KD in CA Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 Not so. They have a right to control its running through an elected school board, but the board is not obligated in their policies beyond uniformly applying them. Control doesn't mean absolute control. They are certainly obligated to apply policies that take into account the safety and well being of the children they are responsible for overseeing. Changing the policy on cheerleading or water ballet is hardly the same thing as strip searching a student. Sure you can come up with a million "what if?" scenarios, and of course people will disagree on what constitutes "harassment" or "safety" or "reasonable", etc. That's why we have a court system to sort these things out when people feel they have been mistreated, and the USSC spoke pretty clearly that these school administrators were wrong.
Bishop Hedd Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090625/ap_on_...rt_strip_search Thomas warned that the majority's decision could backfire. "Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments," he said. "Nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school." Leave it to the court's resident pervert.
John Adams Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 It illustrates the stupidity of the school officials. But last time I checked, stupidity and incompetance were not unconstitutional. No, but the state's unreasonbable search's are. School official's stupidity lead to the unreason-ability.
finknottle Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 No, but the state's unreasonbable search's are. School official's stupidity lead to the unreason-ability. So it comes down to society's defination of 'unreasonable.' I would let the local communities define it, via action through their representative school board system, while you would let nine unelected individuals decide it for us.
John Adams Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 So it comes down to society's defination of 'unreasonable.' I would let the local communities define it, via action through their representative school board system, while you would let nine unelected individuals decide it for us. Your argument is Daffy Duckesque. Constitution Schmonstitution. States and communities can decide things like the definitions of reasonableness in this context, but at no time can it be LESS than the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, which is what happened in this case.
Wacka Posted June 27, 2009 Posted June 27, 2009 And in Modesto,CA the school board ok'd letting students go to get an abortion, doctor, and dentist visits during the school day without telling the parents.
Steely Dan Posted June 27, 2009 Posted June 27, 2009 The opinion is pretty case-specific. The judges were quick to note that the search was out-of-line because the school had no suspicion of anything other than prescription-strength ibuprofen. In order to justify a strip search, the Court concluded that school officials must have some evidence that the drug or other item they suspect is being hidden by the student is dangerous in terms of its “power or quantity." Seems reasonable. If you think the kid hid cigarettes in her bra, no strip search. IF you think she hid scrack in her panties, strip. The egregious nature of this case amplifies Thomas's stupidity. She sat for hours and the school never called her parents or the cops. Then they did the search. Dude, all women have a long line of crack in their panties! When you say 'how far do you think it should go?', are you asking what I as a citizen would want my school board's policy to be, or are you asking what the limit is based on the Constitution? Likewise, are you suggesting that a parent must be present because the Constitution says so, or because that's the policy we would want to adopt? Pick one. 1. Both. 2. The Constitutional question hasn't been answered fully yet. As I asked; Would you want your kid subjected to a strip search without your presence? It's a simple question. What's your answer?
Bishop Hedd Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Dude, all women have a long line of crack in their panties! 1. Both. 2. The Constitutional question hasn't been answered fully yet. As I asked; It's a simple question. What's your answer? That isn't even remotely amusing.
finknottle Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Dude, all women have a long line of crack in their panties! 1. Both. 2. The Constitutional question hasn't been answered fully yet. As I asked; It's a simple question. What's your answer? It should be quite clear. I would not want that to be the policy of my school board. I would want a policy of notifying the parents of any strip search. And I would vote my school board members accordingly. But I also believe that my school board has the legal right to set restrictions of what goes on on school premises beyond those in a public place. They have the option of banning concealed weapons, for example, something which is legal elsewhere in my state. Their policies should be determined by them - that's why they are there - with the primary check-and-balance on their decisions the response of the voters. Defining what is 'unreasonable' to my community should be determined by my community, not 9 individuals on a Supreme Court elsewhere. Just because I want a particular outcome for public schools - whether it be no strip-searches for Ibuprofan, mandatory school uniforms, or banning gang colors - doesn't mean that I want the Supreme Court to impose it. The school board should be empowered but answerable to the community.
Recommended Posts