To me the contradiction is that we can’t trust kids with Advil, but they are adult enough to go to prison for life. There seems to be a great big hole the size of the Grand Canyon in that logic.

No lube!”

While I’m pretty sure I think I agree with your sentiments I must ask, what the hell is a cheese hog?

Any finger(or any other body part) that goes up my kids but will end up in a jar of formaldehyde above my fireplace.

With the owner still attached.

Any finger(or any other body part) that goes up my kids but will end up in a jar of formaldehyde above my fireplace.

Before you neg karma me, does anyone here want to bet a year’s salary that this goes–at best–like Kelo? Until there’s a real revolution in the USA (not a tea party that’s already forgotten), the people will have no power here. None.

And I ain’t going to bet an ounce of silver on the revolution being peaceful.

Since all us citizens exist only at the tender mercy of the state, I’d like to shove my cheese hog in yer fucking underwear, Breyer.

No lube!

Wonder how long it will be before we have students strip searched to match their breasts or genitalia to sexting photos the admins have intercepted.

“Please, please, can we call it a ‘tallywhacker’? ‘Penis’ is so p-p-p-personal.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgFCV2i6xxI

I’m waiting for the case in which a student surreptitiously records the whole event with her cell phone, sends it the media, and is prosecuted for producing child porn.

The only way the strip search should have been allowed is if her parents had been contacted and either 1. agreed to it, or 2. performed the search themselves.”

By that logic the principal could have sex with the student, provided the parents consented.

…

What if the student is actually informed on the 4th amendment and says no, fuck you, you can’t look inside my panties. What do you do then?

Taser her to ensure her “compliance”, of course…

One can possibly argue that the student doesn’t have the “right” to refuse the strip search.

However… the reason I think the court should not find in the school’s favor is that the student doesn’t have the “right” to consent to it. It’s no different than if the principal had sex with the student, she’s not old enough to consent to that, so in the same token she should not be old enough to consent to a strip search either.

The only way the strip search should have been allowed is if her parents had been contacted and either 1. agreed to it, or 2. performed the search themselves.

I wonder if the court would be so lenient if this were an 8 or 6 year old girl?

Chris in AL, although it was suggested by using private school as a foil, you are completely on point. Who, or under what circumstances could someone act on this ruling, should it pass. Would it only be government officials, or any adult in control of a child’s well being?

Taser her to ensure her “compliance”, of course…

So, one of the justices asked that very question: What happened to the informant?

And then counsel admitted that she had received no punishment at all.

So basically, the innocent girl who gets strip searched is punished; the person who fingered her who turned out to be lying got away scot free.

If you are the Adult Supervisor on seen, and will be held criminally liable if these kids consume drugs on your watch, aren’t you morally obligated to strip search kids yourself if you have reason to suspect they have something dangerous in their possession?

Do we really want to give this power only to school officials, when our children spend much of their lives not at school but still under another adult’s supervision? How can we truly protect them unless everyone has the right to strip search them? If a bunch of kids die because of the crack they hid in their underpants, can we really console ourselves with the thought that “if they had just been at school!”

Are they to be at risk all through summer break?

It was a joke. I would have hoped an obvious joke. It struck me funny that the only post i’ve seen generate almost 100 comments is one about strip searching teen girls, my apologies.

One of the (many) travesties of the drug war is the use of single, often questionable, informants as the sole basis for carrying out a raid. As readers of this site know, this sometimes results in the full power of government being brought to bear on an innocent person. Perhaps I’ve missed them, but I don’t recall reading reports of these informants suffering some consequence for their actions when they falsely accuse someone. Certainly they don’t carry the culpability of the police or DEA that carry out the damaging raids that usually result, but if informants carried some sort of liability at least the number of people falsely accused and injured by this ridiculous war on drugs might decrease.