Another casualty of the war on drugs ...

[PeteG]

On April 21st, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in connection with the strip search by Safford Township, Arizona school officials of then 13 year-old Savana Redding, an honor student and alleged Ibuprofen Mule. They found nothing, except Ms. Redding of course.

This is from the oral argument:

MR. WRIGHT [Attorney for the School District]: Once you had reason to suspect a student is possessing any contraband that poses a health and safety risk, then searching any place where that contraband may reasonably be found is constitutional, and --
JUSTICE SCALIA: Any contraband, like the black marker pencil that -- that astounded me. That was contraband in that school, wasn't it, a black marker pencil?
MR. WRIGHT: Well, for sniffing.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Oh, is that what they do?
MR. WRIGHT: It's a permanent marker.
JUSTICE SCALIA: They sniff them?
MR. WRIGHT: Well, that's the -- I mean, I'm a school lawyer. That's what kids do, Your Honor, unfortunately, Your Honor.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Really?

Note he did not say Ms. Redding was "sniffing" it ... it's just that he knows that's what school children do. So bust the bitch ... she's gotta' be hiding something!

Zero Tolerance America. Does it make you proud to be an American?

Now 19, Ms. Redding is still trying to get her suit against school officials to trial. If she prevails before the Supreme Court, she gets to start her case.

You want to be "tough on crime"? Better be very, very careful to define "tough" and "crime." The next victim of this "anti-crime" monster could be anyone "possessing, or looking like they might possess, ammunition, ammunition components or metals, chemicals or other elements from which ammunition or ammunition components might be fabricated or manufactured," or some equivalent lunacy.

In other words, it may be you.

And with ultra-conservative courts (read "non-activist" to the wing-nuts), good luck vindicating your civil rights there.

We have dismantled our Constitution to get at boogey-man. And nobody had to fire a shot.

[Philbert]

The problem with activist judges is not that they are active, it's that they use legal ambiguity as an opportunity to drive a political agenda. A "non-activist" judge can still make significant rulings based on the legal arguments. I think the law favors the student here, and there's nothing activist about a judge ruling for the strongest legal argument. Judicial activism would be favoring the weak legal case of the school because their actions are "for the children". Judicial activism was when the courts invented exceptions to the fourth amendment because they felt politically driven to promote the folly of the war on drugs.

[ReconLdr]

I suggest we ban the following:

1) Motrin (ibuprofen)
2) Sharpies or other permanant markers - black only because only black sharpies are evil. There would be an application process for other colors to be owned and transported by subjects with applicable licenses.
3) Clothing - since criminals can hide motrin tablets and sharpies in their pockets
4) Purses - see above
5) Back packs - see above

I realize it would be awkward at first, eventually people will become comfortable being naked in public. I see this as being the only way we can protect our children.

When we get the "Sharpie/Motrin Bill" passed only LEO and military will have them. Why would anyone want a sharpie or motrin anyway?

[LittleRedToyota]

And with ultra-conservative courts (read "non-activist" to the wing-nuts), good luck vindicating your civil rights there.

We have dismantled our Constitution to get at boogey-man. And nobody had to fire a shot.

agreed 100% with your post.

but, to be fair, "good luck vindicating your civil rights there" apples to both "sides".

there are no judges on the supreme court who consistently stand up for civil rights or who are consistently intellectually honest in reading and applying the constitution...and i don't think there have been in my lifetime at least.

for example, souter is often touted as a great defender of civil rights, yet he voted against civil rights (and against what the constitution actually says) in kelo v. new london, gonzalez v. raich, heller v. DC, etc. etc.

[PeteG]

The problem with activist judges is not that they are active, it's that they use legal ambiguity as an opportunity to drive a political agenda. A "non-activist" judge can still make significant rulings based on the legal arguments. I think the law favors the student here, and there's nothing activist about a judge ruling for the strongest legal argument. Judicial activism would be favoring the weak legal case of the school because their actions are "for the children". Judicial activism was when the courts invented exceptions to the fourth amendment because they felt politically driven to promote the folly of the war on drugs.

As always, we can't know what we are talking about until we define terms.

"Activist Judge" has traditionally been an epithet attached to one who deviated from an ultra-conservative, strict constructionist (literal) reading of the Constitution, or anyone who would rule so as to preclude efforts to use schools or other instruments of government to promote a particular religion - assuming the religion in queston was a sufficiently popular Christian sect. Your definition works, too, but only so long as we are all using the same definition.

And, actually, the law has so radically changed over the past 10 years that it does NOT favor the student. Witness the fact she has been forced to go all the way to the Supreme Court to determine whether she can even proceed with her case. All the student (actually, she has graduated high school by now) has on her side are common sense, justice and fading memories of what used to be the law regarding personal privacy and dignity.

(I know, I know; there is no Constitutional right to privacy. That was invented by activist judges; just ask Rush ... before prosecutors subpoened his medical records and he ran to the ACLU to protect his constitutional right to privacy.)

[PhillyPhunk]

They drug war is a joke and always has been.
A proven failure.

Anyone who believes the war on drugs is productive in any country , let alone America needs some serious edjumications.

[LittleRedToyota]

(I know, I know; there is no Constitutional right to privacy.

this is one that always gets me too.

how the heck does "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." not equal a right to privacy?

i don't think i'll ever get that one.

and, even if it doesn't, how does the 9th amendment not protect a right to privacy?

just ask Rush ... before prosecutors subpoened his medical records and he ran to the ACLU to protect his constitutional right to privacy.)

i also don't think i'll ever understand how anyone can take that hypocrite seriously.

[LorDiego01]

This is the case of the 13 year old girl who was STRIPPED SEARCHED at school, right?

Why are we focusing on the drugs? Isn't this child abuse?

I bet you 700 billions dollars in TARP money, that if I were to strip search a 13 year old girl, I'd be getting shanked in federal prison faster than you can say "pass the joint, Bubba".

When I have children, I will teach them to question authority, ESPECIALLY if said person in a position of power demands that they take off their clothes.

[mojo]

This is the case of the 13 year old girl who was STRIPPED SEARCHED at school, right?

Why are we focusing on the drugs? Isn't this child abuse?

I bet you 700 billions dollars in TARP money, that if I were to strip search a 13 year old girl, I'd be getting shanked in federal prison faster than you can say "pass the joint, Bubba".

When I have children, I will teach them to question authority, ESPECIALLY if said person in a position of power demands that they take off their clothes.

+1

How are they allowed to strip search a child WITHOUT contacting her parents or guardian first. I couldn't imagine. She should be suing them for sexual/child abuse too!

[LilEMT]

I suggest we ban the following:

1) Motrin (ibuprofen)
2) Sharpies or other permanant markers - black only because only black sharpies are evil. There would be an application process for other colors to be owned and transported by subjects with applicable licenses.
3) Clothing - since criminals can hide motrin tablets and sharpies in their pockets
4) Purses - see above
5) Back packs - see above

I realize it would be awkward at first, eventually people will become comfortable being naked in public. I see this as being the only way we can protect our children.

When we get the "Sharpie/Motrin Bill" passed only LEO and military will have them. Why would anyone want a sharpie or motrin anyway?

Its absolutely getting ridiculous. Even stores are joining in on it. Four years ago, when I was 17 I went to the local art store to buy poster board, glue and colored sharpies to do a project with. Keep in mind, I was old enough to DRIVE MYSELF TO THE STORE but the clerk told me it was their policy not to sell glue or sharpies to anyone under 18. Are you kidding me...

Now I got carded not to long ago to buy cold medicine at my local drug store.... I ONLY WANTED A BOTTLE... Its not like I was trying to buy a case of it....

It makes one wonder....