Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Thursday, June 25, 2009

In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a school's strip search of an Arizona teen girl accused of having prescription-strength ibuprofen was illegal.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

truthhurts

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Broken clock, blind pig, Scalia.

Top court rules strip search of teen was illegal...but sexy!

Thomas again reveals himself to be the dumbest legal mind ever to wear the black robes.

But in fairness, he was the only repub black man in America available for Bush the greater to fill the affirmative action pick.

sexy!

#2 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-06-25 11:30 AM | Reply | Flag: Likes fat chicks

"Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments," he said. "Nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school."

I don't know how one secretes contraband, but I would certainly like to meet her.

Of course we have the obligatory Scalia and racist Thomas remarks from the left.

The kicker is the biggest cry-cunt about racism (OldWeaknStupid) is the one to bring up the racial angle.

Shool administrators had no legal right to strip search a 13 year old for ibuprofin pills?

No shit, Sherlock.

Confirmed by the SCotUS?

Good!

Unanimous?

Wot do you mean "No"?

Who?

Thomas?

* deep sigh *

K, wot did the moron say this time?

"Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments," he said. "Nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school."

Uh-huh.

Spud thinks we should strip search Judge Thomas and see if he's hiding his personal stash of StOOpid Pills in his underwear.

They gotta be somewhere.

That guy is farking hilarious, he rarely opens his mouth to say anything and then when he does he's generally dead wrong.

Be Well.

Spud thinks we should strip search Judge Thomas and see if he's hiding his personal stash of StOOpid Pills in his underwear.

They gotta be somewhere

I think he comes about it naturally.

se⋅crete1  /sɪˈkrit/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [si-kreet] Show IPA
Use secrete in a Sentence
verb (used with object), -cret⋅ed, -cret⋅ing. to discharge, generate, or release by the process of secretion.

Awww, does it drive you crazy that Thomas was an affirmitive action pick 101, you racist piece of shit?

What, if I dont hate people of color like you do am I not allowed to mention race?

Typical bullshit from the biggest racist this side of Johnson?

Blow it out yer ass, douchchair.

Thomas is just reminiscing his desires for Anita Hill. He was a perv then why wouldn't he still be a perv???

#9 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-06-25 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag: MISSED DEFINITION #2

secrete 2 (s-krt)
tr.v. secreted, secreting, secretes
1. To conceal in a hiding place; cache. See Synonyms at hide1.
2. To steal secretly; filch.

Thomas dissented? The teenager must have reminded her of Anita...

Lucky it wasn't my daughter otherwise they have to wait till I get out of jail for aggravated assault for even thinking that it was okay.

Just my thoughts...

Amen Richard

Especialy over frikin' advil.

Oh and the little snitch who claimed she had it needs to be beaten as well as the school faculty who did it.

Once again Scalia shows that when it comes to the rights of the Accused, he is the most "liberal" mind on the court. His literalist interpretations of the Bill Of Rights almost always accrues to the benefit of the defendants. Interesting. As a liberal, I don't like Scalia in general. As a public defender representing defendants, I think Scalia is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

#9 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-06-25 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag: MISSED DEFINITION #2

secrete 2 (s-krt)
tr.v. secreted, secreting, secretes
1. To conceal in a hiding place; cache. See Synonyms at hide1.
2. To steal secretly; filch.

#12 | Posted by JOE

fair enough I stand corrected.

Amen Richard

Especialy over frikin' advil.

Oh and the little snitch who claimed she had it needs to be beaten as well as the school faculty who did it.

#15 | Posted by TaoWarrior

well the drug itself really doesnt matter, advil given to somebody with immunity issues or an allergy to advil could be life threatening. The School had an obligation and responsibility to look into the allegation. They just went about it completely wrong.

And from what I read ""What was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear," Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion. "We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable." " seems to state that school officials could have strip searched her if the accuser said she put the pills down her pants.

Tis scary the power that this gives schools. I for one believe the girl could have been kept isolated until her parents/guardians arrived to address the situation.

Apparently Clarence wanted to personally inspect the panties for incriminating pubic hair but was disappointed to find out he can't keep the evidence.

Apparently Clarence wanted to personally inspect the panties for incriminating pubic hair but was disappointed to find out he can't keep the evidence.

#19 | Posted by northguy3

Ya........ He was there to do the strip search. WTF are you babbling about?

Snippy-relax, you'll pop an artery. It was just a joke. Have aflac Fed-Ex you some chamomile.

#10 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2009-06-25 01:07 PM | Reply | Flag: Called out for becoming what he claims to hate

Don't worry OldWeaknStupid, we get that you only like the ones that stay on the Dem Plantation.
Your hypocrisy has been noted. Now, don't you have some funeral pre-planning to work on?

It was just a joke.

#21 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-06-25 02:08 PM | Reply |

Did you ever notice your jokes (and the ones you steal from Stewart and then butcher) blow?

Did you ever notice your jokes (and the ones you steal from Stewart and then butcher) blow?

He gets his jokes from BK?

It was just a joke.

#21 | Posted by northguy3

I'll bet you laugh watching grass grow.

101 is gettin so pissy. Cmon racist pos, tell us some more funny stuff about black folks.

Wanna compare DD form 212s and see who is older.

Oh, you dont have one?

Thought not.

ct is a vile piece of garbage.

Public education in the US is failing by every standard tool that we have to measure with. And most of it, is a direct cause of well meaning federal legislation.

Lost in the question of rights, is "did they truly suspect she was hiding drugs, and did they have reason to think that?"

High school should not be run by high schoolers... or by Federal judges, regardless of who appointed them. It should be the parents and teachers.

I'm getting more and more radical I guess.. but I think public education is beyond repair.. if a business model was applied.. it would be dismantled and started over, and the goal would be to educate kids. Not provide labs for social experimentation, or a platform for interesting and esoteric lawsuits. What this ruling has done is to effectively quash any possibility the school administrators had of controlling drugs in that high school.

I meant to say "direct result" not "direct cause"... scuse me..

Wanna compare DD form 212s and see who is older.

Oh, you dont have one?

Thought not.

#26 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2009-06-25 02:35 PM | Reply

I've got a DD214. I am not aware of a DD212. Maybe they issued them to you with your musket you crusty old bitch?

You just like black dems where as I don't like any blacks or dems.

James Earl Ray was an american hero!

Tell us gramps, where does one get a dd212?

There is more than one thing wrong with this comination strip-search and court case. The first, the search is obvious and the second is why in God's name did this need to go all the way to the SCOTUS for this simple decision to be made.

This should be a notice to the schools everywhere that they do not own these children and that these same kids do not lose their rights because they are in school. The sad thing is that I believe that a large number of school personnel will ignore this case and carry on despite it's decision.

It is DD214, POS. First time you were right. I tip my cap to you.

And you are a disgusting racist piece of shit by your own admission, Chair.

How come?

Did you ever notice your jokes (and the ones you steal from Stewart and then butcher) blow?

#23 | Posted by 101Chairborn

Much like you do? Only without the drooling?

I do think someone put sand in chairborne's Vaseline. He's becoming increasingly grumpy. Then agian, it could just be the continuing popularity of PRESIDENT BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA coupled with the collapse of the NOP that chaffs his ass...

She can sue the district but not the individual.

I thought that if you sued the individual, it was because they acted outside of their duty.

This was so agregious, I don't see why she shouldn't be able to sue the person who knowingly went overboard.

Twice in one week Justice Thomas is the lone vote on an 8 to 1 ruling. This is not the first time this has happened this MORON is so far to the right that even the Republican Conservatives on the Court will not go there.

I'm beginning to HATE the elder Bush more than George W. for no other reason than he gave us the worst Justice ever to serve in our Supreme Court. To think that this UNCLE TOM replaced Thurgood Marshall, a true legal Giant, is something that the elder Bush should be ashamed of. Maybe next time the parachute will not open ......

"The court's decision sends a clear signal to school officials that they can strip search students only in the most extraordinary situations," added her lawyer, Adam Wolf of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation.

I don't think schools should be strip searching any student, period. As someone mentioned, the student should be isolated and supervised until the parent(s) arrive.

I don't think schools should be strip searching any student, period. As someone mentioned, the student should be isolated and supervised until the parent(s) arrive.

#39 | Posted by jpw

Eric Harris
Dylan Klebold

I knew someone would bring up Columbine.

You really think they would have consented to a strip search? Do you really think the power to conduct strip searches would have changed a damn thing?

Probably not.

You really think they would have consented to a strip search? Do you really think the power to conduct strip searches would have changed a damn thing?

Probably not.

#41 | Posted by jpw

I don't think a strip search is a matter of consent. However, I wasn't necessarily referring specifically to Columbine, but rather using that as an example of potential "extraordinary" circumstances under which such a measure could be justified.

"I don't think a strip search is a matter of consent"

No, they would have just shot the bastards.

"but rather using that as an example of potential "extraordinary" circumstances under which such a measure could be justified."

I know, but I think strip searches won't change a situation in which violence is the goal. It's only real use is in drug control in which case I don't think it necessary for the school admins to conduct them.

Mine says DD214 but if I hold it under a black light it says DD212.

rwd

Officials had searched the girl's backpack and found nothing, Thomas said. "It was eminently reasonable to conclude the backpack was empty because Redding was secreting the pills in a place she thought no one would look," Thomas said.

It should have been eminently reasonable to conclude she didn't have any pills. It was ibuprofen--not a kilo of cocaine. She could have easily gotten more after school--no need to hide the pills in her underwear like Papillon.

Holy Crap, is Thomas really this crazy? I am going to have to read his dissent, this should be good.

I get the feeling Thomas would have agreed that it was "eminently reasonable" to look for Anne Frank in the attic.

I don't think a strip search is a matter of consent. However, I wasn't necessarily referring specifically to Columbine, but rather using that as an example of potential "extraordinary" circumstances under which such a measure could be justified.

Confining them would have been sufficient. No need for a strip search.

I don't think anyone disagrees that "stuff you can and can't do" goes out the window once armed hostiles arrive on the school grounds.

Schools are easy to attack. They're designed for hundreds or thousands of people to come and go in just a few minutes time. Of course, if we have to search all their panties, it's going to take a little while longer. Might as well get on the PTA and lobby for a "no panties" dress code. But first I'll buy stock in Speculum Corp. of America.

I wish they would have spoken to the larger issue at hand: why is it permissible to search the backpack? As soon as a school announces a Zero Tolerance policy for everything from aspirins to drawings of handguns, the logical extension for tyrannical school boards and unionized un-firable teachers and administrators is to search, search, search. Without probably cause, I believe it's unconstitutional to search my carry-on bags at the airport. But libbies don't mind making all of us go through that, simply so the Islamists don't have their feelings hurt, being singled out.

How about the idea that a kid is a allowed to bring advil to school? If it's sold over the counter, you can have it. If it requires a prescription, you need to have it with you if you're going to be taking it on school grounds? And be done with it?

Sounds like Thomas is right. If they can search your backpack, but not underneath your clothes, where do you s'pose the kids are going to be hiding their contraband from now on? Duh.

...continuing popularity of PRESIDENT BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA ...

#35 | Posted by northguy3

HAHAHAHA, Now THAT is funny.
I don't care who you are, THAT is funny.
The sheen is coming off that one.

Snippy-relax, you'll pop an artery. It was just a joke.
#21 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-06-25 02:08 PM | Reply | Flag: taking comedy lessons from Frank2.5

I wish they would have spoken to the larger issue at hand: why is it permissible to search the backpack? As soon as a school announces a Zero Tolerance policy for everything from aspirins to drawings of handguns, the logical extension for tyrannical school boards and unionized un-firable teachers and administrators is to search, search, search. Without probably cause, I believe it's unconstitutional to search my carry-on bags at the airport. But libbies don't mind making all of us go through that, simply so the Islamists don't have their feelings hurt, being singled out.

How about the idea that a kid is a allowed to bring advil to school? If it's sold over the counter, you can have it. If it requires a prescription, you need to have it with you if you're going to be taking it on school grounds? And be done with it?

#47 | Posted by rightisright

the thought process is that children cant be responsible when handling/taking medication. In our school district all medicines have to be given by the school nurse, whether presciption or not. non-presciption medications can be deadly serious to children with immune deficiencies or allergies. and a child could in all good conscience hand a friend an advil or two that results in serious harm to the other child.

Schools have many responsibilities to the children under their care. Call it teacher fascism if you will, but they are the adults in the situation and have a responsibility to assure the kids safety.

I often find it odd that many who claim they are all for law and order and condone torture are the first to scream about their rights being taken away when a school looks in a backpack for something dangerous.

Sounds like Thomas is right. If they can search your backpack, but not underneath your clothes, where do you s'pose the kids are going to be hiding their contraband from now on? Duh.

#48 | Posted by rightisright

and you demonstrate an ignorance of the SC's decision. They didnt say strip searches were illegal but that this case didnt have enough supportable evidence to make the search reasonable.

School's can still strip search under certain circumstances,

What was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear," Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion. "We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable."

Ok ALOT of people here are missing the point. The SCHOOL and its EMPLOYEES cannot strip search a student. But... They can call the COPS to preform the search. This is what the School District should have done in the first place. Public Employees do not have police powers. (though they will have it soon at the rate we are expanding the powers of Government.) have police powers.

I don't think a strip search is a matter of consent... #41 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-06-25 04:49 PM

WTF, what an incredibly moronic statement. How about if a crime is suspected to have occured or imminent to occur on school property, e.g., possession of drugs with or without intent to distribute, that we call in the people trained and paid to perform the investigation in a competent, professional manner--the police? Let the witness make a statement to the police and then become legally liable if the tip is intentionally bogus.

Having teachers playing Sherlock Holmes not only trying to investigate suspected felonies is questionable enough, but going all the way to perform strip searches is plain laughable. As previously stated, it's amazing this went all the way to SCOTUS for resolution.

S.A.R., if you are so cavalier about spreading your buttcheeks, be my guest, but I would imagine most normal Americans value their right to privacy, especially when the privacy violation involves personal degradation and humiliation. Doh!

Ever think the problem is with a gov't school and the morons who run them?

Add to that the parents that say "my little drug dealer would NEVER do something like that...." or whatever defense the parents use when their child builds bombs in his bedroom (where the parents are NOT ALLOWED to go)... then shoots up his classmates.

Parents need to parent, and they need to stop giving so much power to the gov't.

You don't want your kid stripped searched by the school... good for you... now keep your kids out of their hands.

101 is gettin so pissy. Cmon racist pos, tell us some more funny stuff about black folks.

Wanna compare DD form 212s and see who is older.

Oh, you don't have one?

Thought not.

#26 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2009-06-25 02:35 PM

Maybe the VA should dial back your medication. That would be a DD 214.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable