SerpentVenom

With celebrity deaths, adulterous AWOL governors and protests in Iran, it was easy to overlook a couple of interesting decisions handed down by the U.S. Supreme court this past week. The first decision increased a minor student's right to privacy, while the second toppled yet another affirmative action policy.

The first case was related to the strip search of a 13-year-old girl at her middle school. The court ruled that her constitutional rights against unreasonable search were violated. The ramifications of the case are mild since the decision did not eliminate the possibility of a strip search, it merely set parameters of when a strip search is appropriate, including taking into account how dangerous a substance is, and how likely it is hidden in an intimate place. Clearly ibuprofen does not fall under the dangerous category, and school officials only had the word of another student that the victim had the pills to begin with.

What is more remarkable about this decision is the court was nearly unanimous in handing down this decision. The court voted 8-1 in favor of this decision. Clarence Thomas was the only dissenter. He cites concerns that public school policy is not the domain of the constitution. So if schools started imprisoning students based solely on scurrilous accusations and without benefit of a trial, that's OK with Thomas as long as the schools are safe. Thomas also expressed concerns about students now armed with the knowledge of the best place to hide contraband.

Clarence, get a clue. Hiding stuff in your underwear is not a great revelation. Besides, even before this decision, schools had other means to conduct searches of students without violating their right to privacy with strip searches. I don't know of any police department that does not have a drug sniffing dog that can detect the presence of drugs without requiring a subject to disrobe in order to find drugs on their person. Once a drug sniffing dog reacts positively to the presence of drugs, the school officials would have probable cause to perform a more intrusive search. The difference now is that school officials will have to exercise some good judgment before mangling a person's fourth amendment rights.

As to the reverse discrimination case, no surprise here. The conservatives on this court including Thomas have a well established record against any kind of affirmative action policy. So to say that this decision is a clear rebuke of Supreme Court nominee, Sony Sotomayor is going a little too far. This decision came down to the usual 5-4 vote. That's not a rebuke.

The unfortunate consequence of this case is that employers have one less policy to help them ensure that they maintain a diverse work force that is free of discrimination. Some might see that as a positive, but most minorities not named Clarence Thomas, see the decision as yet another hurdle they'll have to clear in order to excel in the work place.

Posted under Political Observations on Tuesday, June 30th, 2009 at 10:28

Follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.