Clarence Thomas Stands Up for the Right to Strip Teenagers Naked
Hats off to Justice Clarence Thomas for his courageous stand on behalf of school officials' right to strip teenagers naked in an effort to find prescription pills. This great man has more than justified George H.W. Bush's faith in his character, dignity, and wisdom. Taking a position at odds with such moral relativists as Scalia, Roberts and Alito, Justice Thomas once again proved that he is indeed our Man For All Seasons.
Hopefully, one day school administrators will be free to strip all children bare-ass naked each and every morning, perhaps during the Pledge of Allegiance and the Prayers to God, so that parents can rest assured that pills of any sort will be kept out of class, not to speak of the weapons of mass destruction that could easily make their way through our nation's school doors.
Is it too much to suggest that with the Republican Party in such a moral wasteland with the activities of Messrs Ensign and Sanford, that its leaders look to Justice Thomas to lead them back to the promised land in 2012?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I think his experience with Anita Hill has given him the unique experience to make a wiser (or is it more wise) decision on this issue than a the experience of a Latina that grew up in the poor part of NYC would be able to make.
Good ol' Clarence Thomas, sticking it to "The Man", again.
Almost makes you wish for Robert Bork.
As I read Bergman's piece before realizing he was pulling a Jonathan Swift, I locked and loaded my weapon and headed for the door to chat with him of course. I live in Texas, teach "Our Constitution Under Attack," "Critical Thinking," "SCOTUS, "FISA, Patriot Act and Military Commission Act."
In Texas, Justice Thomas is praised for same reason Senator Orrin Hatch praises Justice Thomas: his well reasoned opinions.
iT IS TIME I HAD MY OWN BLOG; HOW DO I DO THIS? PLEASE HELP ME.
If it had been Thomas's daughter who was strip searched would he still think it's ok? I think he'd be the first to take up arms.
Wow, what a great idea! Draft Thomas in 12! I'm gonna start a committee. Of course, he'd have to step down from the Court first...
In Canada supremes are retired at 75. This doesn't necessarily ensure judicial brilliance but does limit the ability of those out of touch to render bad decisions. Perhaps term limits of 10 years subject to 5 year extensions voted on by 2/3 congressional majority or something similar would be an improvement.
Clarance Thomas's problem isn't age.
A 13 year old girl has prescription strength ibuprofen (twice as strong as ordinary advil) and claims another girl gave it to her. Is there something wrong with talking to these kids as people who will be adults in 5 years and explaining school policy on medication, dangers of misuse of medications - and without a big fuss explaining school policy to the parents. Unless these individuals have some kind of history wouldn't that be sufficient. As to the lying (a problem not limited to young teens) - if the school had a more sane relationship with the students perhaps the first girl might have been more forthcoming. The only thing strip searching or calling the police over this incident accomplishes is to provide another reason for kids to despise school.
Were he a school administrator, he would have strip searched her, After all, another child told them she was bad. Probable cause enough for him.
During Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings (when he shouldn't have been confirmed), we learned a lot about his prurient interests and his mysogynistic tendencies. It's no surprise that he would be in favor of strip searching young girls. He's a continual disgrace and should be impeached.
One of my scariest moments in the last year came in my 1L constitutional law class, where our professor would ask the class to vote on how we would have ruled on all the cases covered.
When studying the commerce clause, I realized that the one current justice whose votes matched mine on every case was Thomas, the second closest was Scalia.
I did a lot of self-reflection that day and was very grateful to move on to other topics, when I could get back to disagreeing with them on everything.
About the only other thing I will give Thomas credit for, is that he is the conservative justice least likely to go after a result in violation of his typical jurisprudence (not to say he doesn't, he just does it less often). This decision, however, probably shows why that approach sometimes leads to results that fly in the face of sense.
I would agree that the Commerce Clause has been interpreted broadly by the Supreme Court since the 1930s. I would also argue that, without that interpretation, the US economy would not have grown into the powerhouse that it is today (the current recession notwithstanding) .
I don't really disagree and I tended to like the results of those rulings, though I don't necessarily agree with them from a constituional point of view and prefer some of the narrowing that happened under the Rehquist court. As much as I think the law in Morrison was a good bit of policy, I don't like the implications for expanding the commerce power to the point where anything that could theoretically impact the economy can be federally regulated.
In the end, that would mean the feds can regulate whatever the hell the feel like.
I honestly think that Clarence Thomas is so intellectually insecure that to keep from being labeled a complete sycophant, he occasionally takes ridiculously exaggerated positions to show some independence from Scalia. Since he wouldn't dare inch towards the left, he has to leap to the farthest right position one could take without discarding the rule of law altogether. Actually, it's pretty pathetic.
When I said "she was strip-searched for allegedly possessing prescription-strength ibuprofen." I didn't make myself clear.
I think it is complete B.S. If I was the young woman I would've kicked the person that told me to do this square in the junk.
An interesting bit of mis-direction going on here. The author is spending all his time on Clarence's Thomas dissent in the strip-search case. That way he doesn't have to explain why the neocon running dogs Roberts, Scalia and Alito voted against the strip search actions. Better to have people mad at Thomas than have them asking why their prejudices don't add up.
They voted against the strip search because it was indefensible, a fact lost on Thomas. You will notice, however, that they stopped short of holding the school or its officials accountable - that *would* have been going too far from their point of view.
He's an embarrassment to the court and country, not just his race
This man has been an embarrassment since he first appeared on the national scene.
Justice Clarence Thomas is an embarrassment to everyone except to the far right demagogues who thought he would be exactly the kind of knee jerk thoughtless jurist he is. This is the kind of black man that the GOP offers.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
