A small victory against zero tolerance and for civil rights.

[Empty Hands]

The Supreme Court ruled today against an Arizona school that strip searched a 13 year old girl in search of ibuprofen based on another student's tip. Heartening to me, the vote was 8-1 against, with only Justice Thomas dissenting. This still leaves the legality of zero tolerance policies and "reasonable suspicion" searches in place, but will hopefully curb the most egregious abuses. In the wording of a 1985 SCOTUS decision, such searches must not be "excessively intrusive." Let's hope this ruling helps schools hold to that standard.

 

[Phoenix44]

Good decision.

Interesting that the minority opinion was Clarence Thomas.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Good. Every once in a while they do something right.

Interesting that the minority opinion was Clarence Thomas.

I bet Anita Hill isn't surprised.

 

[seasoned]

I'm on board with that.

 

[Empty Hands]

I bet Anita Hill isn't surprised.

Oh, you so bad! :lol:

 

[celtic_crippler]

Oh, you so bad! :lol:

What? :uhyeah:

 

[arnisador]

I'm on board with that.

Same here. Zero tolerance only makes sense to those who haven't tried to enforce it.

 

[Ninjamom]

Interesting note: SCOTUS ruled that the individual school employees and adminstrators could NOT be sued over this incident, because there was so much disagreement among the nine justices as to what exactly constitute fair, reasonable, and/or excessively intrusive.

 

[arnisador]

I thought it was because court rulings at various levels conflicted or were vague, not because of this ruling alone. In fact, 8-1 is a lot of unanimity.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I thought it was because court rulings at various levels conflicted or were vague, not because of this ruling alone. In fact, 8-1 is a lot of unanimity.

In truth, even 8-1 decisions can be varying. Just because you fall on one side or the other of the affirm/reverse line doesn't mean you agree with your fellow voters completely. Consider how often cases contain varying concurring opinions which, when read thoroughly, reveal stark differences from the majority decision.

Not saying necessarily that this is shown in the instant case, since I have yet to read the decisions. Just sayin' that even when the majority is such a landslide, the opinions aren't always so clear cut.