An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Home Schooled, Home Grown Football Team

Obama the Moderate President »

Justice Thomas, The Rest of the Story: What He Really Said re Safford Unified School District #1 v. April Redding

Posted by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, Deputy Managing Editor, Columnist in At TMV, Education, Politics.
Jun 26th, 2009 |

View comments

Comments

After reading on blog-sites and in some media hugely inaccurate portrayals of Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion about fourth ammendment rights re underage children being searched for drugs at school, including having the chid disrobe… for what some call a strip search… take a look for yourself.

Firstly, what is left out of most reports I’ve read, is Justice Thomas’s opinion clearly states that he concurred with the rest of the court in part, and dissented in part… a salient fact that somehow is not noted at all, or well in reports across much of the blogosphere. Many have reported only that he dissented and then some reporters cherry-picked one quote in particular, out of context to Thomas’s greater opinion, to claim Justice Thomas is irrelevant …and ignorant.

Agreeing or disagreeing with Justice Thomas’ ‘mixed’ opinion is not the point of this article, rather …only that seeing the bigger picture of a SCOTUS Judge’s opinion is useful to letting us see the different ways that wet string stretched out tight and nailed down at two points– that is, our Constitution– can still be stretched to one side or another of the set mean…

depending on one’s world view, one’s education in Constitutional law, what aspects of legal precedent one chooses to focus on in the aggregate… rather than only in the microdot view given too often in media, one that omits the larger ‘rest of the story’…

Certainly in the most positive ways, reading SCOTUS opinions in full (this one is about 30 paras long) helps us to understand the difference between what the law actually is, rather than what we wish it were.

Personally, I think reading SCOTUS opinions and precedent references is valuable, especially to those who want to initiate or change laws when they realize that their heart or mind’s opinions on a certain issue– and the law as it stands now– do not match up.

Viz:

SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT #1, et al., PETITIONERS v. APRIL REDDING

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[June 25, 2009]
Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the Court that the judgment against the school officials with respect to qualified immunity should be reversed. See ante, at 11–13.

Unlike the majority, however, I would hold that the search of Savana Redding did not violate the Fourth Amendment .

The majority imposes a vague and amorphous standard on school administrators. It also grants judges sweeping authority to second-guess the measures that these officials take to maintain discipline in their schools and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge.

This deep intrusion into the administration of public schools exemplifies why the Court should return to the common-law doctrine of in loco parentis under which “the judiciary was reluctant to interfere in the routine business of school administration, allowing schools and teachers to set and enforce rules and to maintain order.” Morse v. Frederick, 551 U. S. 393, 414 (2007) (Thomas, J., concurring).

But even under the prevailing Fourth Amendment test established by New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S. 325 (1985) , all petitioners, including the school district, are entitled to judgment as a matter of law in their favor.

You can read the rest of Justice Thomas’s opinion on this case here:

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

GreenDreams

perhaps there's some merit to the legal point, Dr. E, but there has to be a line of common decency. Stripping an adolescent girl of even her panties to look for Ibuprofen is completely outrageous, and the "evidence" against her, the accusation of another adolescent, is wholly inadequate IMO to justify it. I'm not sure an accusation from such a source should be acceptable to merit a "reasonable" search even if the allegation was that she had hard drugs. In such a case, I'd argue the parents and police should be called (they weren't), the case made to a judge, a warrant issued, and if the accusation proved false, serious action taken against the accuser for making a false report to police.

The drug in question was a single tablet of "prescription strength 400 mg ibuprofen" which is the same as two nonprescription Advil tablets. None was found on her body or in her possession.

archangel

I agree with you entirely Green Dreams... and I appreciate your voice to defend the defenseless. As I inferred in the last para, there is often (sometimes it seems too often Green Dreams) a too broad gulf between absolute clarity of the law against such intrusion, ... and 'the interpretable' aspect of the same law.

My brush with law school taught me something my mind/heart sometimes struggles to entirely understand... and that is that interpretability of laws and evidences can be a boon to actual justice.

But sometimes, it doesnt seem so in reality, does it?

That the parents should have been called first? Absolutely. Unequivocally. It is no wonder the case came before the Supremes. I'd think that most any parent would be outraged beyond outraged and vow to take it to heaven's gates if need be.

One of the things that Justice Thomas did raise that I think is interesting, at least in the way I understood his meaning... he wanted, I think, in part, to depend on the school authorities to act as 'parents in place of the actual parents' ... but that seems to depend very much on the school admins having the same protective stance as a loving parent. That part did not meet my 'real world' bar.

On another note, I wonder what scenario actually plays at that particular school. I've been in schools that are like hell; there are few loving parents, few parents who would come if called even if you could find the tavern or crack joint they were using as their domecile, and the teachers are barely able to teach, and admins are unable to guide a vision for they are trying to get through ea day without a student or teacher being knifed or shot. I dont know which scene Justice Thomas had in mind. I tend to think it was the latter. Although for certain, the same occurs in schools with parents from other economic classes too, even though the neglect and disinterest in their children can be far better disguised.

So... I think still, the way that Justice Thomas's opinion was portrayed by many acorss blogosphere, deserved one more look. I hope it was a little edifying to see what he actually wrote.

Thanks GD
dr.e

stewartm0205

Clarence Thomas is an idiot. I read his dissent. The important question is would any of you want your 13yr old daughter strip searched because of an aspirin. I noted in the foot notes that there are rules governing body cavity searches so Clarence should understand that asking a young lady to strip to her underwear should not be done casually, that it better be a lot more serious than a school rule infraction.

DLS

"hugely inaccurate portrayals of Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion about"

... everything is routine, and not the least surprising. Consider the portrayers.

archangel

agreed that an important question re searching a child for a rx drug, or excessive OTC drug, Stewartm0205, and here in this case, it appears the legal focus was an issue relating to 4th amendment. The case was not a test of how to determine who ought be searched for what or via whichever means. And, your concerns are those of many other persons too, and no doubt in terms of parental rights et al, some day a case that treats of the constitutionality or not, of that matter, might be taken up by SCOTUS. In which case, this particular case in the affirmative will possibly stand as precedent.

thanks,
dr.e

archangel

I think DLS, and thank you for the comment, that it's usually more useful to see what a person said in context, even if one still doesnt like it, or thinks it's just fine... than to do otherwise.

I wonder where so many journos learned to chop off 'the rest of the story.' I'm just an old writer, but if the storytellers amongst the elders chopped off half the ancient stories.... well, they'd no longer be considered by the tribe as able carriers of stories. They'd not be called cuenteras or cantadoras or taltos. They'd be called el ojo uno, one-eyed.

It seems we're created so that we all have our shares of one-eyedness. I keep trying to practice overcoming it when I can. I hope you do and others do too. Everyone can still have an opinion, but... within the light, instead of in the half-dark. Just my two cents worth DLS. Appreciate your common sense, always.

dr.e

blog comments powered by Disqus