• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Top court rules strip search of teen was illegal

You're right, an illegal search is an illegal search. Doesn't really matter what they find because it was illegal. Let's say you know a guy's a rapist but can't prove it. You break into his house and find panties of the victim with his semen on it. Guess what, you can't use that as evidence now and the rapist goes free. Same concept here. Illegal searches help nobody because you have to break the law in the first place.

Second, as for "finding a gun" I'm gonna throw up a straw-man because it seems like the thing to do here and I feel like it would be a wasted opportunity not to. "Blah blah blah, 2nd Amendment, blah blah blah, right to bear arms... what if she shot a guy who was trying to rape a child with her illegal gun... hypothetical hypothetical blah blah blah.

They didn't say that it's always an illegal search.

So....he casts a dissenting vote away from Scalia occassionally....so what?

So your claim that he blindly follows Scalia is essentially ****. He doesn't vote with Scalia (or, more accurately, Scalia doesn't vote with him) any more than Alito votes with Roberts or Stevens votes with Breyer.

The man hasn't authored a single opinion of significance in the decades that he has been on the court.

Just off the top of my head:

GOOD NEWS CLUB V. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-130.ZO.html

Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994).

14 PENN PLAZA LLC v. PYETT

And that's only of his opinions. He's at his best when he's concurring or dissenting to make a point.

I'm sure that if I bothered to go through this list, I'd find plenty more:

Supreme Court Collection: Opinions by Justice Thomas

He is well known for not engaging in questioning during hearings, despite the fact that he may have done so on a couple of ocassions.

What does this have to do with anything? Please don't tell me that you view one's level of interaction at oral arguments as indicative of anything beyond the desire to hear oneself speak.

I work in the legal profession....I read Supreme Court opinions daily......so your criticism that somehow I haven't studied Thomas and know what I am talking about is unfounded.

Then why is it that you can't offer a remotely cogent criticism of him, and instead resort to the overplayed and completely uninformed "he just follows scalia, he doesn't talk, he's dumb, etc."?
 
They didn't say that it's always an illegal search.



So your claim that he blindly follows Scalia is essentially ****. He doesn't vote with Scalia (or, more accurately, Scalia doesn't vote with him) any more than Alito votes with Roberts or Stevens votes with Breyer.



Just off the top of my head:

GOOD NEWS CLUB V. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL





http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-130.ZO.html

Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994).

14 PENN PLAZA LLC v. PYETT

And that's only of his opinions. He's at his best when he's concurring or dissenting to make a point.

I'm sure that if I bothered to go through this list, I'd find plenty more:

Supreme Court Collection: Opinions by Justice Thomas



What does this have to do with anything? Please don't tell me that you view one's level of interaction at oral arguments as indicative of anything beyond the desire to hear oneself speak.



Then why is it that you can't offer a remotely cogent criticism of him, and instead resort to the overplayed and completely uninformed "he just follows scalia, he doesn't talk, he's dumb, etc."?



Your side lost

Accept it and move on.
 
I think this is fantastic news!

I hope the lower court holds the school liable. I really do.

Since the Supreme Court found that the school officials were wrong ... the lower court really has no choice.
 
Excellent decision ! the actions of those school administrators is another example of over-reaction to a problem or situation. I am sure that somewhere a similar over-reaction to a bullying or "hatespeech" problem has occured. Good work Supremes !!!
 
This ruling was perfect. The notion that we must have absolutely clear, unyielding standards makes for unjust law enforcement. It is ridiculous that some of us think we can have black and white rules for society, and American jurisprudence has recognized this from its inception: The very language 'unreasonable search and seizure' insists on making the matter a judgement call... an inherently fuzzy proposition.

Life is a fuzzy proposition, and if we insist on 'black and white' rules to live by, then we should err on the side of liberty and not on the side of oppression. What the court reinforced, here, is that we can have effective law enforcement standards that can weigh the fuzzy circumstances of life. In so doing, they are attempting not to err on either the side of liberty or oppression. They are attempting to provide us with a Jurisprudence that reflects life.

While it may be a mistake to interpret the law so 'flexibly', the answer is NOT authoritarian measures. I would rather have kids in school with guns in their panties than allow school administrators to strip search students in the apparently 'critical' hunt for illicit ibuprofen. If we have reached the point where such strip searches are 'necessary', then we have already failed, and there is no point in trying to 'save ourselves' through such invasive acts.

We need a moral society, not an authoritarian one. Really.
 
Your side lost

Accept it and move on.

Thanks for this high quality legal analysis, chief.

This ruling was perfect. The notion that we must have absolutely clear, unyielding standards makes for unjust law enforcement. It is ridiculous that some of us think we can have black and white rules for society, and American jurisprudence has recognized this from its inception: The very language 'unreasonable search and seizure' insists on making the matter a judgement call... an inherently fuzzy proposition.

Life is a fuzzy proposition, and if we insist on 'black and white' rules to live by, then we should err on the side of liberty and not on the side of oppression. What the court reinforced, here, is that we can have effective law enforcement standards that can weigh the fuzzy circumstances of life. In so doing, they are attempting not to err on either the side of liberty or oppression. They are attempting to provide us with a Jurisprudence that reflects life.

The problem is that you're placing the burden of making that complex decision on school administrators, who are not best suited to handle this.

While it may be a mistake to interpret the law so 'flexibly', the answer is NOT authoritarian measures. I would rather have kids in school with guns in their panties than allow school administrators to strip search students in the apparently 'critical' hunt for illicit ibuprofen.

That's not what the court said though - they made it clear that there were situations in which the school would be justified in strip searching students.
 
Yes, they do. The issue of whether there's protection of these school officials by qualified immunity is subject to further dispute.

No, they do not.

The SCOTUS ruled the search illegal.

Therefore, the lower court is required to make a judgment in accordance with the instuctions of the SCOTUS.
 
The problem is that you're placing the burden of making that complex decision on school administrators, who are not best suited to handle this.

I agree with you on this issue. School administrators are not at all qualified to make such decisions.


That's not what the court said though - they made it clear that there were situations in which the school would be justified in strip searching students.

Whether or not their meaning was clear -- case law has been created. Everytime a case such as this arises attorneys for the plaintiff are going to use this case as a citation of general opinion of the highest court in the land.

Moreover, schools are NEVER justified in conducting strip searches of minor children.

The police are not even legally allowed to conduct a strip search. That duty falls to the jailers when a subject is incarcerated. That being said ... how can you even defend the actions of the school?

The school was wrong. The administrators were wrong. The administrators, the school, and the school district are all going to be paying out the ass for their absolute violation of that girl's rights.

Based on what occurred, I would not be surprise if the school district is forced to fire some employees because of what occurred.

Also ... you need to lay off the pro-righty, business can do no wrong attitude. They were wrong for doing what they did... you are wrong for agreeing with them and defending their deploreable actions.
 
The problem is that you're placing the burden of making that complex decision on school administrators, who are not best suited to handle this.
I don't agree that school administrators are so incapable of determining what is 'reasonable' that they will routinely overstep the bounds of the law. Especially if they seek to remain well inside the law and not try to push the bounds. However, if they are incapable, then please read my response to C. Thomas, below. The response is meshed with responding to your stuff as well.






That's not what the court said though - they made it clear that there were situations in which the school would be justified in strip searching students.
I clearly acknowledged that the court said what you are asserting. My declaration was that IF (as Thomas claims) the law is too vague, and needs to be tightened up, we have two choices:
  • We could automatically default to "oh well, I guess we'll have to allow strip searches for anything the administrators wish and interpret unreasonable search and seizure right out of the constitution" (as Thomas does), OR
  • We could default to "No way are we going to allow them to strip search at their discretion, so, since the law can't be made clear without serious encroachment on liberty, strip searches are hereby banned altogether as unconstitutional".
I can't believe that he concluded the former. It IS outrageous.

If we have reached a point where we can't handle our freedom responsibly, let our society crumble under the weight of that behavior. Don't use that irresponsibility as an excuse to encroach on freedom. Let the strain be its own teacher, and have patience and faith that society will (eventually) pressure us all to be decent citizens of high integrity.
 
Last edited:
Whether or not their meaning was clear -- case law has been created. Everytime a case such as this arises attorneys for the plaintiff are going to use this case as a citation of general opinion of the highest court in the land.

Moreover, schools are NEVER justified in conducting strip searches of minor children.

Except that's not what the court said. Did you read the opinion at all?

The police are not even legally allowed to conduct a strip search. That duty falls to the jailers when a subject is incarcerated. That being said ... how can you even defend the actions of the school?

The school was wrong. The administrators were wrong. The administrators, the school, and the school district are all going to be paying out the ass for their absolute violation of that girl's rights.

No, the administrators are not. Again, did you read the opinion at all?

Also ... you need to lay off the pro-righty, business can do no wrong attitude. They were wrong for doing what they did... you are wrong for agreeing with them and defending their deploreable actions.

Government-run public schools = businesses? Who knew.

I don't agree that school administrators are so incapable of determining what is 'reasonable' that they will routinely overstep the bounds of the law. Especially if they seek to remain well inside the law and not try to push the bounds. However, if they are incapable, then please read my response to C. Thomas, below. The response is meshed with responding to your stuff as well.

I clearly acknowledged that the court said what you are asserting. My declaration was that IF (as Thomas claims) the law is too vague, and needs to be tightened up, we have two choices:
  • We could automatically default to "oh well, I guess we'll have to allow strip searches for anything the administrators wish and interpret unreasonable search and seizure right out of the constitution" (as Thomas does), OR
  • We could default to "No way are we going to allow them to strip search at their discretion, so, since the law can't be made clear without serious encroachment on liberty, strip searches are hereby banned altogether as unconstitutional".
I can't believe that he concluded the former. It IS outrageous.

If we have reached a point where we can't handle our freedom responsibly, let our society crumble under the weight of that behavior. Don't use that irresponsibility as an excuse to encroach on freedom. Let the strain be its own teacher, and have patience and faith that society will (eventually) pressure us all to be decent citizens of high integrity.

Or, we could reach choice number 3: Schools continue to exercise their basic authority, but if they believe that a kid has drugs/guns/etc, they don't touch the kid and just call the cops instead.

That can still happen under the current framework, but it could have happened under the old framework as well.

Again, I'm not so much bothered by the outcome in this case as I am irritated by the fact that it was such a useless case to hear compared to so many others. This is a perfect example of a fact-driven case that will not carry weight outside of its narrow boundaries.
 
No, they do not.

The SCOTUS ruled the search illegal.

Therefore, the lower court is required to make a judgment in accordance with the instuctions of the SCOTUS.

I didn't claim otherwise.

The legality of the search is not at hand; whether individual administrators will be protected from damages now will be.
 
Hopefully the girl and her parents sue the **** out of the school. This should teach any school official not to allow that same kind of **** again.
 
Except that's not what the court said. Did you read the opinion at all?

Stop defending the school's nazi behavior. I know it's hard for you right-wingers ... but try anyway.


No, the administrators are not. Again, did you read the opinion at all?

I disagree. The school IS responsible for its employees actions under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior. Therefore, the school and the district ARE going to be paying out.

Government-run public schools = businesses? Who knew.

Yet more evidence of the republican train of thought.

Schools ARE NOT businesses because they are funded by tax dollars. This makes them different than a business in to many ways to list.

Or, we could reach choice number 3: Schools continue to exercise their basic authority, but if they believe that a kid has drugs/guns/etc, they don't touch the kid and just call the cops instead.

Since the police cannot conduct a strip search legally ... calling the police would not be all that useful.

In any event, the SCOTUS ruled the search "illegal" ... which means the school is wrong.

Therefore, the girl is entitled to money damages and the officials in question should and probably will lose their jobs.
 
Stop defending the school's nazi behavior. I know it's hard for you right-wingers ... but try anyway.

What the **** does this have to do with what I said?

English mother****er, do you speak it?
I disagree. The school IS responsible for its employees actions under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior. Therefore, the school and the district ARE going to be paying out.

READ WHAT I SAID. I didn't disagree.
Yet more evidence of the republican train of thought.

Schools ARE NOT businesses because they are funded by tax dollars. This makes them different than a business in to many ways to list.

Please tell me you're not serious - THAT WAS MY POINT. Holy ****, this is mindbogglingly painful.
 
I didn't claim otherwise.

The legality of the search is not at hand; whether individual administrators will be protected from damages now will be.

The school is liable. They are not above the law and they are not immune from damages.

I suspect the school district will be paying out.
 
The school is liable. They are not above the law and they are not immune from damages.

I suspect the school district will be paying out.

"The school" =/= "the administrators"

That's sort of the whole point.
 
Back
Top Bottom