You are hereForums / Issues / The Courts / SCOTUS: Good news, and (sort of) good news
SCOTUS: Good news, and (sort of) good news
First off, Sandra Day O'Connor on Sotomayor, women in the judiciary, and the questions regarding the idea of "activist judges".
Second, among the many decisions being ruled on: strip-searching students for the equivalent of two Advils is unconstitutional (8-1 majority). Thomas wrote the dissent, with the apparent assumption that the student had to have been hiding drugs. The man must have ignored the part of the investigation where the officials found absolutely nothing. In a separate ruling, however, the court ruled that the school official who ordered the search could not be held liable. (mini-rant) One would hope that the negative PR alone would be enough to convince the district to fire the guy, but given my limited experience with school administrators and district officials, they're much more like country club members than politicians-- if you're one of them, they look out for you; if not, they'd rather you go away.
Just one observation on the strip-search case. The local courts where the case was originally filed sided with the school. It was the Federal 9th Circuit that overturned that decision, and ruled for the plaintiff. SCOTUS affirmed the 9th Circuit ruling.
Even Scalia and Alito ruled the search illegal. Clarence Thomas has now established himself as so far out of the mainstream as to be a laugningstock (when you are to the right of Scalia and Alito, what more can be said).
I could not agree more Colin. Thomas is proving the presidenyt right when he said that he believes that he does not have the intellect or that his body or work was too thin to be on the bench.....
BTW: he also disented on the Voting Rights Act....8-1
I will not throw the first punch but I wil certainly throw the last.....President Barack Obama.