The Supreme Court yesterday determined, 8-1, that searching a child while they weren't suspected of carrying any illegal substances, and then not apologizing to them when you don't find said legal substances, is unconstitutional. Gr8, I say.
Wondering who the dissenting opinion was? Yes, "our" very own Clarence Thomas. He says,
“Preservation of order, discipline and safety in public schools is simply not the domain of the Constitution,” he wrote. Justice Thomas also said Thursday’s decision provided the nation’s students a court-sanctioned hiding place. “Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments,” he wrote. “Nor will she be the last after today’s decision, which announced the safest places to secrete contraband in school.”
Thanks, Clarence Thomas - you've once again proved to tons of people that it's acceptable for people to be morally ambiguous, as long as they're black (we've got the genetic trauma thing going on, and we're all from the hood, so that makes it OK to be oppressive assholes). Poor white people.
Also, thank god this wasn't a black kid being strip-searched. At least since it's a white kid, some precedent might be set that authority figures don't always have to suspect youth of being up to no good.
Comments