Thomas, still laughing at Bryer's confession
My best friend's 13 year old Casey is an adorable little woman-child. Casey has one size 8 foot in that place we still call childhood and the other, slightly larger foot parading into the young woman side of the equation. Having known her since the utero days, I can tell you that she is as precious as they come, and if anyone did anything to traumatize or humiliate this little woman-child, there would be hell to pay. I certainly know what Savana Redding's mother must have felt the day her daughter came home to tell her that she was strip searched.The Redding case should be a simple no brainer. The school strip searched 13 year old Savana Redding based on hearsay from another 13 year old who was deflecting school officials from her own troubles having been caught violating the school's no OTC or prescription drugs on campus. Though years have passed and the lawsuit lives on, apparently so does the humiliation for Savana Redding. This time by the Supremes themselves.
Reading through the transcript of the arguments presented to the Supremes in the Redding case, there is only one conclusion. They have lost their ever loving minds.
Justice Alito eluded to a lovely idea, that perhaps the schools ought to have a program like the police do with confidential informants - lists and all. That should ferret out the liars among them he postulated. After all, they would be vetted, right?
Justice Scalia wanted to know why permanent markers were contraband and when told students sniff them to get high, he replied: "REALLY?" Seriously.
Justice Bryer wants to know from ACLU attorney Wolf, why is undressing any different than changing out of your clothes for gym class? Gee, I don't know. Perhaps because she was standing in the nurse's office with a school official telling her to strip.
And it wasn't gym class where most 13 year old girls change half inside their lockers or manage the art of changing clothes without actually removing one set first.
Perhaps Justice Bryer is thinking of a certain DVD where paid actresses made up to look like teenage girls prance about the locker room in cute little lacey bras and
Bryer went on to fully amuse Justice Thomas (perhaps they are both familiar with that DVD?) when he then said that in his day (gee, that's relevant) he remembers taking off his clothes (in the locker room) and being in his undies getting ready for gym class and by golly, people stuck things in his underwear (can you hear the laughter from Thomas?). Or wait. He goes on to say maybe he stuck things in other kid's undies. Oh my. Just stop talking now Mr. Justice.
Meanwhile Savana Redding is sitting in the courtroom. Her comment afterward? All she wanted the school to do was to call her mom. Wow. That should take a ruling from the Supreme Court, shouldn't it?
Let us hope that some of the Supreme's are ready for a bit of that thing called retirement.
Comments
I remember being, as my British friends would say, gobsmacked when I heard Nina Totenberg's rundown of arguments in this case. As a boy, I hated changing into and out of clothes in front of the other guys; I went to great lengths not to be seen naked. Regardless of gender, kids have so many body insecurities at that age and to order a strip search seems to be really crossing a line.
I'm not a lawyer or constitutional scholar, so maybe I'm missing some subtleties here, but it seems to me, after a search of Ms. Redding's locker, backpack and pockets came up negative (noting that, according to Totenberg's story, Redding cooperated every step of the way) that should have been the end of it, or the school should have had to get a warrant. Besides, if the school were concerned that Redding was running or cooking crystal meth, as they claimed to be, there are chemical tests that could have been conducted that would not have required Redding to remove a stitch of clothing.
Correct me if I'm wrong OS lawyers (and I mean that!) but I'm thinking this sort of search would not have been allowed had Ms. Redding not been on school grounds.
This case is definitely an argument against life tenure for SCOTUS judges. Rated.
I'm not a lawyer or constitutional scholar, so maybe I'm missing some subtleties here, but it seems to me, after a search of Ms. Redding's locker, backpack and pockets came up negative (noting that, according to Totenberg's story, Redding cooperated every step of the way) that should have been the end of it, or the school should have had to get a warrant. Besides, if the school were concerned that Redding was running or cooking crystal meth, as they claimed to be, there are chemical tests that could have been conducted that would not have required Redding to remove a stitch of clothing.
Correct me if I'm wrong OS lawyers (and I mean that!) but I'm thinking this sort of search would not have been allowed had Ms. Redding not been on school grounds.
This case is definitely an argument against life tenure for SCOTUS judges. Rated.
The drug in question was prescription strength ibuprofen. I understand the need to protect to children, so who was there to protect Savana from this act of insanity?
You have no civil rights in this country until you hit the age of 18. It's a sad, sad truth.
These pigs are simply scum. All of them. Alito and Thomas and Scalia should have something stuffed down their underwear for this line of commentary...I'"m thinking a rabid weasel.
These pigs are simply scum. All of them. Alito and Thomas and Scalia should have something stuffed down their underwear for this line of commentary...I'"m thinking a rabid weasel.
I love your post and I want it to be perfect.
To that end, I'm going to ask you to change "heresy" to "hearsay".
To that end, I'm going to ask you to change "heresy" to "hearsay".
Thanks Jeanette. done.
VR - they should have civil rights. thus, this case. but looks like it won't happen with this one.
MM - indeed!
Austin - gobsmacked is perfect.
VR - they should have civil rights. thus, this case. but looks like it won't happen with this one.
MM - indeed!
Austin - gobsmacked is perfect.
This case has got me floored.
The comment that it's no different from gym class just kills me. I've been a 13 year old girl in gym class. Most of us changed without ever publicly removing an article of clothing! Baggy t-shirts thrown over your street clothes and then you can remove the shirt underneath with some flexibility that I haven't possessed since I was 13. Then back to your locker practically crawled inside of your open locker, pants off as quickly as possibly, baggy t-shirt pulled down as far as possible and quickly quickly quickly pulling on your shorts. Even better if you'd worn a skirt that day and could put your shorts on without removing your skirt.
That is SO far different from having two school administrators pull you into an office, accuse you of something and then demand that you strip. And not just strip but strip and then pull out the sides of your bra and shake it out causing you to expose parts of your breast. Repeat with your underwear causing you to expose parts of your pelvis. And all without ANY parental permission, involvement or discussion. Like Savana sad, she just wanted them to call her mom. Why couldn't her mom be there?
I would be incredibly traumatized if that happened to me today. If I'd been just thirteen and dealing with all of the emotions that a thirteen year old girl deals with as well? I am not sure I'd have been able to bear that treatment.
I understand the desire to keep a school drug free. But really? They couldn't have put her in a supervised office and watched her until her mother could be called? If they really believed the ibuprofen was beneath her clothing certainly they would have noticed if she had reached under her shirt or down her pants to hide said contraband while waiting for her mother.
I think the idea of SCOTUS approving this action is very dangerous. Do we really want a school principle to have the authority to order children to strip? Doesn't that just sound like a huge problem waiting to happen? Shouldn't we be able to tell our children that they should NEVER have to remove their clothes for an adult unless we are there or it is their doctor?
Search a locker, search a backpack. Really that's ok with me if they've got reason to believe that there's something dangerous. But your private parts? Not the same in any way; they're called private for a very specific reason.
The comment that it's no different from gym class just kills me. I've been a 13 year old girl in gym class. Most of us changed without ever publicly removing an article of clothing! Baggy t-shirts thrown over your street clothes and then you can remove the shirt underneath with some flexibility that I haven't possessed since I was 13. Then back to your locker practically crawled inside of your open locker, pants off as quickly as possibly, baggy t-shirt pulled down as far as possible and quickly quickly quickly pulling on your shorts. Even better if you'd worn a skirt that day and could put your shorts on without removing your skirt.
That is SO far different from having two school administrators pull you into an office, accuse you of something and then demand that you strip. And not just strip but strip and then pull out the sides of your bra and shake it out causing you to expose parts of your breast. Repeat with your underwear causing you to expose parts of your pelvis. And all without ANY parental permission, involvement or discussion. Like Savana sad, she just wanted them to call her mom. Why couldn't her mom be there?
I would be incredibly traumatized if that happened to me today. If I'd been just thirteen and dealing with all of the emotions that a thirteen year old girl deals with as well? I am not sure I'd have been able to bear that treatment.
I understand the desire to keep a school drug free. But really? They couldn't have put her in a supervised office and watched her until her mother could be called? If they really believed the ibuprofen was beneath her clothing certainly they would have noticed if she had reached under her shirt or down her pants to hide said contraband while waiting for her mother.
I think the idea of SCOTUS approving this action is very dangerous. Do we really want a school principle to have the authority to order children to strip? Doesn't that just sound like a huge problem waiting to happen? Shouldn't we be able to tell our children that they should NEVER have to remove their clothes for an adult unless we are there or it is their doctor?
Search a locker, search a backpack. Really that's ok with me if they've got reason to believe that there's something dangerous. But your private parts? Not the same in any way; they're called private for a very specific reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment