Today the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a strip search of a thirteen year old girl in 2003 by a school employee was unconstitutional. (They were looking for over-the-counter ibuprofen)
As reported by the Washington Post;
"The court ruled 8-1 that such an intrusive search without the threat of a clear danger to other students violated the Constitution's protections against unreasonable search or seizure."
Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter and even he agreed in part. Justice Souter wrote the "opinion of the court" and the girl was represented by the ACLU.
All the liberal judges, Ginsberg, Stevens, etal, were in agreement, as usual. What makes this worth writing about?
Just this, I am in agreement with the ACLU and other liberals on this issue. Mark it down, it doesn't happen often.
When the court rules that a government agency violated a person's actual rights and the right is found in the constitution as opposed to having been invented by the Court, it should be applauded.
It should be noted that the so called conservative justices, excepting Thomas, also agreed. It should also be noted that Ginsberg and Stevens reverted to form in some of their comments, but why nit-pick? In my view, they finally got one right.
One in a row. Could it be the start of a streak? Ummm, you might bet a pork chop, but don't bet the whole hog.
No comments:
Post a Comment