The Supreme Court has agreed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by ruling 8-1 that the strip-search of a then-13-year-old Arizona girl by school officials who suspected her of possessing a couple of pills of ibuprofen, based on no other evidence than being pointed in her direction by another student who was busted with the contraband, goes just a wee bit too far.
We find ourselves in the rare position of agreeing with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
"'Abuse of authority of that order should not be shielded by official immunity,' Ginsburg wrote"
while begging to differ with the lone dissenter, Justice Clarence Thomas:
"Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. 'Judges are not qualified to second-guess the best manner for maintaining quiet and order in the school environment,' Thomas wrote."
So you're saying, Justice Thomas, that if school administrators unilaterally decide that, say, tying students up and duct-taping their mouths shut, or whacking them in the head with a paddle, or slipping a little muscle relaxant into their milk is the "best manner" for maintaining discipline in their classrooms, they're free to do so, and judges shouldn't intervene?
We respectfully disagree.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment