Liberal policies have such profound effects:
Strip-search of US girl
A strip search because another student claimed this girl had ibuprofen.
Anyone making these policies ought to be shot.
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.
I really don't agree with that view, but my understanding is that the 'protect the children' mantra has been abused similarly by both parties.
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.
Take it up with your local school board.
Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter.
I don't know if he's trying to demonize the actual strip search or the witch hunt for the drugs.
Nixon first started this "war on drugs" and it was Reagan who knocked it up a notch or 3. WC makes no sense either way. Like WH said... his constant use of the word "liberal" as some sort of insult is all sorts of petty and unsubstantial.
Every conservative I have ever listened to complain about all zero tolerance policies. They take out any subjective reasoning.
Really? I never saw John Ashcroft or (lol) Alberto Gonzalez ever do anything about this...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...ine-sentences/
You're a ing loon, cobra.
Actually, more than a few months ago I saw cobra blame liberals because snow wasn't being plowed off his city streets fast enough for his liking. Besides being idiotic, it struck me as an odd complaint from the supposedly uber self-reliant, champ of small government, "libertarian" that Cobra fashions himself to be.
Here is the ruling:
SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT #1 ET AL. v. REDDING
Note this passage please:
trustworthy information... How can it be trustworthy information when it's from another student who admitted to using the drugs? How many people are honest in such cir stances?The Fourth Amendment “right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures” generally requires a law enforcement officer to have probable cause for conducting a search. “Probable cause exists where ‘the facts and cir stances within [an officer’s] knowledge and of which [he] had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that’ an offense has been or is being committed,” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 175–176 (1949) (quoting Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 162 (1925)), and that evidence bearing on that offense will be found in the place to be searched.
In T. L. O., we recognized that the school setting “re-quires some modification of the level of su ion of illicit activity needed to justify a search,” 469 U. S., at 340, and held that for searches by school officials “a careful balancing of governmental and private interests suggests that the public interest is best served by a Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness that stops short of probable cause,” id., at 341. We have thus applied a standard of reasonable su ion to determine the legality of a school administrator’s search of a student, id., at 342, 345, and have held that a school search “will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction,” id., at 342.
A number of our cases on probable cause have an implicit bearing on the reliable knowledge element of reasonable su ion, as we have attempted to flesh out the knowledge component by looking to the degree to which known facts imply prohibited conduct, see, e.g., Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143, 148 (1972); id., at 160, n. 9 (Mar-shall, J., dissenting), the specificity of the information received, see, e.g., Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410, 416–417 (1969), and the reliability of its source, see, e.g., Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108, 114 (1964). At the end of the day, however, we have realized that these factors cannot rigidly control, Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 230 (1983), and we have come back to saying that the standards are “fluid concepts that take their substantive con-tent from the particular contexts” in which they are being assessed. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U. S. 690, 696 (1996).
Perhaps the best that can be said generally about the required knowledge component of probable cause for a law enforcement officer’s evidence search is that it raise a “probability,” Gates, 462 U. S., at 238, or a “substantial chance,” id., at 244, n. 13, of discovering evidence of criminal activity. The lesser standard for school searches could as readily be described as a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing.
Madatory Minimum Sentences are a far cry different than Zero Tolerance situations before sentencing.
You're the ing loon if you think they are the same.
I have some misgivings about mandatory minimums myself, but without them, crack users are turned back to the streets. Crack users are among the highest repeat offenders of property crimes, stealing to feed their addiction. I have no problems with locking them up. Cocaine users generally are those who have the legal financial means of supporting their habit, and aren't the same burden on society. These facts tend to skew the data that it appears to be racially motivated. It isn't. It's class motivated, and there simply are more poor blacks than whites. This is the root cause. Not race.
Funny thing. I have all seven seasons of The West Wing on DVD. Just last week, I started watching them all over start to finish. I just finished watching an episode from the first season covering the racial implications of crack/cocaine mandatory sentences. I disagree with many of the thoughts in The West Wing, but I love the show. I finished the last disk this morning of season 1 at work, and will take a break before starting season 2. I finished watching the first two episodes of season 1 of True Blood. Interesting HBO series.
Oh... Before anyone asks, I sit at a desk until called on a maintenance problem. Being a technician, I have such time to watch DVD's at work, and the supervisors are glad I'm staying awake on a graveyard shift.
You simplified my complaint. The liberals here in Portland bought the global warning hoax, hook-line-and-sinker. They completely failed to prepare for snow events. It took weeks to clear amounts of snow that used to be cleared the next day.
Yes, I am self reliant. I still made it to work every day. Almost late one day. Several people didn't make it to work on some or all snow days.
Not all libertarians believe in no government. Most of us realize there are basic services to be maintained like Fire, Police, etc. I want a far smaller government. Not no government.
In my life, I'm quite certain that liberals are most apt to see the world as a black-and-white, binary choice, while conservatives are devoted to seeing nuance and lots of grey areas. Yeah, that's always been my understanding.
one student narcing on another student is hardly trustworthy info. Students could have all sorts of fun with that crap. "hey lets say that John has prescription motrin...!" "ok that sounds fun".
I agree that zero tolerance is zero intellingence.
PS, whoever the narc was ought to be punished somehow.
What the is wrong with a kid having ibuprofen? It's like over the counter. I don't see how it's illegal to have ibuprofen. I think the girl should sue big time. Besides, what if she had had a headache or migraine and they took her ibuprofen from her? Schools have to provide medical assistance for their students.
Wild Cobra's re ed ad hominims aside, I agree with sentiment of the tread le, and I'm glad the SCOTUS laid a nearly perfect smackdown on this bull (Clarence Thomas, naturally).
This is only an issue because she is overweight and insecure about her body image. When this first broke she talked about being embarrassed, not about having an unreasonable search or uncons utional thing, etc. Thus this specific case becomes a non-issue that is clouded by another problem; useless for making policy.
There's no doubt that the school didn't have reasonable cause, but the kid/parent wants things for the wrong reason, which weakens their case. I'm sure their law team already picked up on this, but they already blabbed to the media long ago.
Whenever there's chance for the govt or orgs or corps to crush individuals, Thomas votes that way.
Very bizarre for the other radical wrongies to vote not with Thomas. The exception that proves the rule.
You know, when my kid goes to school, I'm going to tell him that if the principal ever tells him to undress, he's to say, "No, I'm not doing that, call my parents."
If they try to get my kid to undress I'm getting an f'ing lawyer.
School authorities think they can do whatever the f they want because they have some 'power' there.... screw that.
If they try to get my kid to undress, I'm getting a ing ambulance.
BTW, I spent 10 years as teacher in Texas public schools. Today's school administrator shouldn't be allowed to cook a grilled cheese sandwich. There are good and bad folks in education, but invariably the morons gravitate towards the admin jobs.
+1
Schools provide them with their own little fiefdom, and admins love it. They have way too much power for their ability.
how does it weaken her case? This girl is not a trained attorney, so I'm guessing she didn't think "hey, this violates the 4th amendment and I'm going to take my cause to the highest court of the land!" She felt wronged so she asked for help from trained professionals who saw the cons utional issues. It would be stupid to judge a case's merit based on what the victim knows or doesn't know about the law.
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.
Agree. They are just two sides of the same coin. There is no real difference between a true liberal and a true conservative, they both want the same things, the path to achieving that goal is just completely different, IMO, conservatives think change comes from the individual, liberals think it emanates from the government, and neither one is willing to admit the other is right, or even has decent ideas.
Good post.
That's a common LE doctrine of immunity.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
