What Are You Doing, Supreme Court Justice [Blank]?

Aside from saying nothing while you hear cases, that is.

Okay, so the good thing is the Supreme Court ruled–utterly sensibly–that strip searching teenagers in school buildings is not constitutional.  Violates the Fourth Amendment and shit.  The bad news?  It wasn’t unanimous.  Guess who dissented.  Go ahead, I’ll give you a minute….

…. (hint)

…..

…….

…….

………..

…………………

Time’s up.  It was Clarence Thomas!  The same Clarence Thomas who sexually harrassed Anita Hill!  Is it just me or is any of this the tiniest bit ironic?

A choice quote from his dissent:

“Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments,” he wrote.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!  This guy’s on the fucking Supreme Court!!!!!  That is fucking amazing!!!!!!!

But to be fair here’s the context of the above quote.  It doesn’t sound quite as ludicrous, but it’s still pretty bad:

“Nor will she be the last after today’s decision, which announced the safest places to secrete contraband in school.”

If there’s one thing I remember about being in high school, it was how everybody was absolutely rapt by the latest goings-on in Constitutional law.

(I just kept my weed in my locker.)

Okay, I’m going to watch the Sopranos now.

Advertisements

2 responses to “What Are You Doing, Supreme Court Justice [Blank]?

  1. I haven’t read the entire dissent, but going entirely from your quote, it’s interesting that Thomas switches from conditional (“would not have been”), to a present tense (“will she be”) that seems at odds with the practical launchpad for this case—i.e., that Redding WASN’T EVEN CARRYING DRUGS!

    There was absolutely no legitimate danger nor even an attempt to confirm the veracity of the “tip” that led to the search, and therefore there was no “reasonable” foundation for a strip search of a 13 year old girl by some sleazy middle school security officer.

    But here you have Thomas, reigning Supreme Court douchebag, retroactively applying guilt to Redding, using syntactic trickery to justify his dissent in the only way it makes sense: idiocy.

    Also, “safest places to secrete contraband in school” is one of the grossest collection of words I’ve ever read.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s