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: