jerryzflies 0 #1 June 26, 2009 Seems he's the only Supreme Court justice to approve of it. online.wsj.com/article/SB124593034315253301.html Why am I not surprised?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #2 June 26, 2009 >Justice Thomas and sexual abuse of underage girls . . . A strip search is not "sexual abuse." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #3 June 26, 2009 Quote>Justice Thomas and sexual abuse of underage girls . . . A strip search is not "sexual abuse." Justice Ginzburg called it "abusive" and having a girl shake out her bra and panties sure is sexual.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #4 June 26, 2009 Quotehaving a girl shake out her bra and panties sure is sexual. a woman shaking out her bra and panties is not sexual a woman shaking out of her bra and panties is ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #5 June 26, 2009 Quote Seems he's the only Supreme Court justice to approve of it. online.wsj.com/article/SB124593034315253301.html Why am I not surprised? Too bad he's not a wise Latina woman - maybe he would have made a better decision.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #6 June 26, 2009 At the rate this admin is moving, it won't be long before any perceived 'right wing' justices will be forced out of SCOTUS and replaced with BHOs henchmen...OR, we could just increase the size of the court to add in more "correct" thinkers - that's never happened before ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #7 June 26, 2009 Quote Justice Ginzburg called it "abusive" and having a girl shake out her bra and panties sure is sexual. So a pap smear must be rape then! What the FUCK!If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #8 June 26, 2009 Quote Quote Justice Ginzburg called it "abusive" and having a girl shake out her bra and panties sure is sexual. So a pap smear must be rape then! What the FUCK! What is it about this place that makes it a magnet for horrible analogies? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #9 June 26, 2009 For some time now, I've had a pretty simple theory about Thomas: that, in his head and heart, he's not as much of a fascist pig as he votes and opines on the SCOTUS. It's just that he was so brutalized at the hands of liberals during his confirmation hearings that he swore to himself he'd devote the remainder of his life's work getting even via his rulings. I'm being perfectly serious, btw. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #10 June 26, 2009 Quote>Justice Thomas and sexual abuse of underage girls . . . A strip search is not "sexual abuse." Do you think school administrators should be able to strip search your daughter if another student says your daughter provided ibuprofin or any other "drug"?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #11 June 26, 2009 QuoteQuote>Justice Thomas and sexual abuse of underage girls . . . A strip search is not "sexual abuse." Do you think school administrators should be able to strip search your daughter if another student says your daughter provided ibuprofin or any other "drug"? I do not - but neither do I think it is "sexual abuse"Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #12 June 26, 2009 Quote Do you think school administrators should be able to strip search your daughter if another student says your daughter provided ibuprofin or any other "drug"? Well Ibuprofin is a serious problem in our schools. Think of the children. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #13 June 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote>Justice Thomas and sexual abuse of underage girls . . . A strip search is not "sexual abuse." Do you think school administrators should be able to strip search your daughter if another student says your daughter provided ibuprofin or any other "drug"? I do not - but neither do I think it is "sexual abuse" What part makes it non-sexual? Not sure if I agree with you or not. Mostly interested in the discussion. According the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect the only component necessary is if the child is being used for sexual stimulation. Contact is not required. Due to the nature of the incident it is most likely not sexual abuse. However, the only way for a parent to know that is to have been present during the search or the parent administered the search him/herself.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #14 June 26, 2009 Quote Seems he's the only Supreme Court justice to approve of it. online.wsj.com/article/SB124593034315253301.html Why am I not surprised? Why am I not surprised at the horrible thread tittle......"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #15 June 26, 2009 QuoteSeems he's the only Supreme Court justice to approve of it. http://online.wsj.com/...593034315253301.html Why am I not surprised? Here are the reasons you are not surprised: (1) You probably don't like Thomas, never have and never will; (2) You are calling it a "sexual abuse" case, even though such allegations do not appear in the article you cited or in the court opinion. Not even the court case is about sexual abuse. (3) You have not read the opinion or the dissent. (4) Having not read it, you would have seen a concurrence/dissent by Stevens and joined by Ginsburg, as well. Surprising? Sure, it's a different issue and one where they dissent against the finding of qualified immunity (which I guess means that they are the ones who don't think that school officials should be constitutionally immune from liability for sexually abusing underaged girls, right? This decision stands for open season on teenaged girls, right?) Perhaps if you read the opinion and the dissent you would be surprised! For your ease... http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-479.pdf My personal belief? From my political viewpoint I do not agree with Thomas. From a legal standpoint, I am also compelled that a search of this nature would require an additional justification over what the facts showed. In that sense, I side with the majority on the facts in this case. "In sum, what was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to thestudents from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear. We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable." Now, to Thomas: I see his point. Thomas cited the same case for his analysis, New Jersey v. T. L. O., (1985) 469 U. S. 325. That case said that a search of a student by a teacher or other school official will be ‘justified at its inception’ when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school. Thomas pointed out that the even the majority found that the search was justified at its inception. Under established precedents for school searchs, "To satisfy this standard, more than a mere 'hunch”'of wrongdoing is required, but 'considerably' less suspicion is needed than would berequired to 'satisf[y] a preponderance of the evidence standard.' United States v. Arvizu, 534 U. S. 266, 274 (2002)" Then Thomas cited TLO again: “a search will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.” The majority concludes that the school officials’ search of Redding’s underwear was not “‘reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified theinterference in the first place" despite the school officials' reasonable suspicion that she was distributing pills. Thomas wrote, "According tothe majority, to be reasonable, this school search required a showing of “danger to the students from the power of thedrugs or their quantity” or a “reason to suppose that [Redding] was carrying pills in her underwear.” Ante, at 10. Each of these additional requirements is an unjustifiable departure from bedrock Fourth Amendment law in theschool setting, where this Court has heretofore read theFourth Amendment to grant considerable leeway to school officials. Because the school officials searched in a location where the pills could have been hidden, the search was reasonable in scope under T. L. O." Then he pointed out that searches must be limited to where the suspected contraband coul be hidden, as explained in prior cases. "A search of a student therefore is permissible in scope under T. L. O. so long as it is objectively reasonable to believe that the area searched could conceal the contraband." Then Thomas points out something key - he basically says (probably correctly, I might add) that under the majority standard, the search would be reasonable if it had turned up contraband. Since it did not, it was unreasonable. The gist is that if the search is reasonable at its inception, it should not be unreasonable just because it didn't turn up anything. Thomas goes on to suggest that courts should not be second guessing school policies. He then states that throughout history schools were considered in loco parentis. I am 50/50 with him on that. Of course, such drudgery may not be as infuriating and paint Thomas as evil as approving of sexual assault of underaged girls. Shocking, I know, that "sexual abuse" or any form of implication thereof was not even considered in a mundane 4th Amendment/qualified immunity case. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #16 June 26, 2009 QuoteFor some time now, I've had a pretty simple theory about Thomas: that, in his head and heart, he's not as much of a fascist pig as he votes and opines on the SCOTUS. It's just that he was so brutalized at the hands of liberals during his confirmation hearings that he swore to himself he'd devote the remainder of his life's work getting even via his rulings. I'm being perfectly serious, btw. I disagree with Thomas on this one, Andy. But I also see how his analysis of the precedents show that his conclusion is reasonable. Do you think that this opinion shows that Thomas has no problem with sexual abuse of underaged girls? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #17 June 26, 2009 Had it been a male administrator doing it, then maybe, but it was a female school nurse. It was an abuse of power and a violation of civil rights by idiotic administrators. Sexual abuse? Uh, no. Unless the nurse was rubbin one out with a pocket rocket...then by all means. And she was probably fat and nasty, so go ahead and picture that. C'mon, you know you already did.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #18 June 26, 2009 Quote Had it been a male administrator doing it, then maybe, but it was a female school nurse. It was an abuse of power and a violation of civil rights by idiotic administrators. Sexual abuse? Uh, no. Unless the nurse was rubbin one out with a pocket rocket...then by all means. And she was probably fat and nasty, so go ahead and picture that. C'mon, you know you already did. That was downright mean! You are an evil, evil person! www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #19 June 26, 2009 Garcon...mental bleach all around!!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #20 June 26, 2009 >Do you think school administrators should be able to strip search >your daughter if another student says your daughter provided ibuprofin or >any other "drug"? Nope. But if they did, I'd go after them for invading her privacy - not for "sexual abuse." That's absurd. If they were forcibly performing pelvic exams on her, then that might make sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #21 June 26, 2009 QuoteToo bad he's not a wise Latina woman - maybe he would have made a better decision. Yep. Just an unwise black man. We all know his privileged upbringing has warped his views.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #22 June 26, 2009 Have you read his book? It's pretty interesting stuff, actually.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #23 June 26, 2009 QuoteI disagree with Thomas on this one, Andy. But I also see how his analysis of the precedents show that his conclusion is reasonable. Ditto. There's a great tendency in our politics (and law) to dismiss views with disagree with as uneducated, unwise, or just dumb (and people we disagree with as "unqualified").-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #24 June 26, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Justice Ginzburg called it "abusive" and having a girl shake out her bra and panties sure is sexual. So a pap smear must be rape then! What the FUCK! What is it about this place that makes it a magnet for horrible analogies? It's something they add to the jello ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #25 June 26, 2009 Quote Quote Justice Ginzburg called it "abusive" and having a girl shake out her bra and panties sure is sexual. So a pap smear must be rape then! What the FUCK! Do you understand the difference between coercion and free-will? Apparently not.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
