Zero tolerance for zero tolerance
By Capt. Fogg
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
But not if you're in school, not if it's about a commonly used non aspirin anti-inflammatory, not if there's a zero tolerance policy and not if the accusation comes from some other 8th grader who doesn't like your looks.
Did a school principal act illegally by having an 8th grade girl stripped to her underwear while she was searched for "drugs?" (Safford Unified v. Redding, 08-479) Clarence Thomas appears to be the only one on the US Supreme Court who thinks so, who thinks probable cause, a legitimate warrant, a reading of one's rights, and due process is a nuisance and a hindrance to dealing with the "scourge of drugs" by school administrators. He was the one dissenting voice today asserting that equal protection under the law is not equally available and that teachers should have powers the police don't have and far less responsibility and accountability to boot.
I'm glad Thomas is here to please the conservatives who loathe judicial activism, because this case points out just how necessary that "activism" can be to preserve justice in the face of the inumanity of some Americans.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-US Constitution, Amendment IV-
But not if you're in school, not if it's about a commonly used non aspirin anti-inflammatory, not if there's a zero tolerance policy and not if the accusation comes from some other 8th grader who doesn't like your looks.
Did a school principal act illegally by having an 8th grade girl stripped to her underwear while she was searched for "drugs?" (Safford Unified v. Redding, 08-479) Clarence Thomas appears to be the only one on the US Supreme Court who thinks so, who thinks probable cause, a legitimate warrant, a reading of one's rights, and due process is a nuisance and a hindrance to dealing with the "scourge of drugs" by school administrators. He was the one dissenting voice today asserting that equal protection under the law is not equally available and that teachers should have powers the police don't have and far less responsibility and accountability to boot.
“The content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion,”wrote Justice Souter for the majority and what an understatement it is. Should some schoolteacher be able to subject his charges to his own version of a totalitarian state; subject small children to sexual humiliation ad libidum; should some dodgy accusation be justification for warrantless intrusion and violation of our civil rights? We would be a sorry excuse for a free country, now wouldn't we? Would warrantless wiretapping and the end of Habeas Corpus and secret enemies lists and secret prisons be far behind? And of course we'd still have drugs anyway.
I'm glad Thomas is here to please the conservatives who loathe judicial activism, because this case points out just how necessary that "activism" can be to preserve justice in the face of the inumanity of some Americans.
Labels: Clarence Thomas, U.S. Supreme Court
posted by Capt. Fogg at
12:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home