Re: Zero Tolerance = Zero Intelligence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElNono
You forgot to mention that the Supreme Court also mentioned that the officials that carried the search were not liable for doing so, because established law was on their side when they did it.
Did I misread the court decision? I thought it said the principal wasn't liable because he followed the schools standing guidelines. but that the law was violated, and that the victim can sue the school!
Did I misread it?
Re: Zero Tolerance = Zero Intelligence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
Did I misread the court decision? I thought it said the principal wasn't liable because he followed the schools standing guidelines. but that the law was violated, and that the victim can sue the school!
Did I misread it?
You probably did. They're allowed to sue the school district over their practices and policies, since that case was not brought to the Supreme court (although it will probably end there at some point). However:
The court stopped short, however, of allowing Ms. Redding’s lawsuit to go forward against the assistant principal who ordered the search and the two female school officials who conducted it. The state of the law at the time of the search, in 2003, was too murky to allow the officials to be sued, Justice Souter said.
(emphasis mine)
LINK
Re: Zero Tolerance = Zero Intelligence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElNono
You probably did. They're allowed to sue the school district over their practices and policies, since that case was not brought to the Supreme court (although it will probably end there at some point). However:
The court stopped short, however, of allowing Ms. Redding’s lawsuit to go forward against the assistant principal who ordered the search and the two female school officials who conducted it. The state of the law at the time of the search, in 2003, was too murky to allow the officials to be sued, Justice Souter said.
(emphasis mine)
LINK
Well, I'm not going to sweat it. At least the unreasonable aspect of this was addressed.
Re: Zero Tolerance = Zero Intelligence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Winehole23
This is distinctively liberal, how?
Your pejorative use of the word *liberal*to compass anything at all you don't like was already out of hand, but now you are veering off into sheer incoherence.
He veered off that direction a long time ago.
The "get tough on crime" shtick that was used to justify all sorts of extra police powers like strip searches, are distinctively conservative ideas.
I must admit when I saw the word "liberal" in the OP, my jaw literally dropped open for a second. WC has literally become jaw-droppingly intellectually disfunctional.
The total inability to do any critical thinking, and self-think himself into a corner is truly unique.
Re: Zero Tolerance = Zero Intelligence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
101A
It goes both ways, seriously - there are closed minded idiots of all political persuasions. The "liberal elite" academics I spend a great deal of time drinking/hanging with are easily as narrow minded as my collection of Limbaugh devotee aunts, uncles and cousins.
Both sides see themselves as the objective, rational one.
And both sides believe that you should be free to live your life as you see fit, so long as it is kosher with their view of the universe. Those are two sides of the same coin, though neither realizes it.
Re: Zero Tolerance = Zero Intelligence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RandomGuy
He veered off that direction a long time ago.
The "get tough on crime" shtick that was used to justify all sorts of extra police powers like strip searches, are distinctively conservative ideas.
I must admit when I saw the word "liberal" in the OP, my jaw literally dropped open for a second. WC has literally become jaw-droppingly intellectually disfunctional.
The total inability to do any critical thinking, and self-think himself into a corner is truly unique.
Do you think he'd practice more critical thinking if he posted Modern World comics?
