Supreme Court: Girl's Strip Search by...

Supreme Court: Girl's Strip Search by School Officials Looking ...

There are 12 comments on the ABC News story from Jun 25, 2009, titled Supreme Court: Girl's Strip Search by School Officials Looking .... In it, ABC News reports that:

The Associated Press 23 comments FILE - This April 21, 2009, file photo shows Savana Redding standing outside the Supreme Court in... FILE - This April 21, 2009, file photo shows Savana Redding standing outside the Supreme Court in Washington, after the court heard the case of Redding who was strip searched when she was 13 years old by school ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at ABC News.

“More human than human.”

Since: Jan 09

North Suburbs of Chicago

#1 Jun 25, 2009
Seriously, over ibuprofen? sounds a bit overzealous to say the least...
Yellow Jasmine

United States

#2 Jun 25, 2009
To my thinking, the SC has dropped the ball...again. If we interpret their ruling, what they seem to be saying is: To the schools - we do not recommend strip searches. But if you do them, there will be no ramifications. What did this solve??? Nada. Thanks.

“BILLARY 2016 ”

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#3 Jun 25, 2009
Yellow Jasmine wrote:
To my thinking, the SC has dropped the ball...again. If we interpret their ruling, what they seem to be saying is: To the schools - we do not recommend strip searches. But if you do them, there will be no ramifications. What did this solve??? Nada. Thanks.
The ramifications, as read in the decision, are that the school is NOW liable for the action, but the principal is exempt from liability. Translation: The parents of the girl can now sue the school, which I'm sure they will.

Of course, the ONE dissenting vote came from.....
wait for it.......CLARENCE "I LOVE PORNO" Thomas and we ALL know how he really feels about women, don't we? Had this been a boy, Thomas would have ruled for the boy. What a pig that man is-truly despicable. I'd like to see him watch one of his spawn be strip searched, although knowing what a perv he is, he'd probably like it. Coke from a can anyone???????
Yellow Jasmine

United States

#4 Jun 25, 2009
x0x0x wrote:
<quoted text>The ramifications, as read in the decision, are that the school is NOW liable for the action, but the principal is exempt from liability. Translation: The parents of the girl can now sue the school, which I'm sure they will.
Of course, the ONE dissenting vote came from.....
wait for it.......CLARENCE "I LOVE PORNO" Thomas and we ALL know how he really feels about women, don't we? Had this been a boy, Thomas would have ruled for the boy. What a pig that man is-truly despicable. I'd like to see him watch one of his spawn be strip searched, although knowing what a perv he is, he'd probably like it. Coke from a can anyone???????
Admittedly, I have not read the ruling. I was getting the gist of it from various cable news bites. From what I heard, the young lady and her family really did not get what they wanted. To be able to sue the individuals who participated. I hope they do sue the school. I just don't feel the SC resolved this issue as the school will use the defense that they have an obligation to the entire school body - even at the expense of one child's mental anguish. And I am afraid - given our current state - juries will buy it (forgetting it could be their kid or grandkid). We really needed the SC to stop the insanity - over one Tylenol pill.
REALLY

Mexico

#5 Jun 25, 2009
Yellow Jasmine wrote:
<quoted text>Admittedly, I have not read the ruling. I was getting the gist of it from various cable news bites. From what I heard, the young lady and her family really did not get what they wanted. To be able to sue the individuals who participated. I hope they do sue the school. I just don't feel the SC resolved this issue as the school will use the defense that they have an obligation to the entire school body - even at the expense of one child's mental anguish. And I am afraid - given our current state - juries will buy it (forgetting it could be their kid or grandkid). We really needed the SC to stop the insanity - over one Tylenol pill.
im not trying to bash you personally but why commonet on the interent on a story thats easy to find and read online but rely on cable?

i think alot of people do the same but whats the point of being online if your dont read the stories...is it a busy factor or something else?

i honestly dont know so please give me some insight
Yellow Jasmine

United States

#6 Jun 25, 2009
REALLY wrote:
<quoted text>
im not trying to bash you personally but why commonet on the interent on a story thats easy to find and read online but rely on cable?
i think alot of people do the same but whats the point of being online if your dont read the stories...is it a busy factor or something else?
i honestly dont know so please give me some insight
Busy factor. I try to get it from online and cable...and print. Just was too busy today to go through an entire ruling. But apparently I did get the gist..which is she can not sue the individuals..which means there will be little incentive to stop these strip searches.
suzy

Buffalo, NY

#7 Jun 25, 2009
the school staff that strip searched her should be awarded a medal for bravery- that's one nasty looking fat girl!

“BILLARY 2016 ”

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#8 Jun 26, 2009
suzy wrote:
the school staff that strip searched her should be awarded a medal for bravery- that's one nasty looking fat girl!
Ain't self loathing grand.....do you feel better about yourself now?

“More human than human.”

Since: Jan 09

North Suburbs of Chicago

#9 Jun 26, 2009
Yellow Jasmine wrote:
<quoted text>Busy factor. I try to get it from online and cable...and print. Just was too busy today to go through an entire ruling. But apparently I did get the gist..which is she can not sue the individuals..which means there will be little incentive to stop these strip searches.
I think the reason they protect the individauls in this case is they may have been following the institutions guidelines. If they could get suedthe individuals are in no man's land. Follow the Board of Ed's guidelines and get sued or disobey the the BOE and get fired. If the school has a policy that calls for strip searches of girls for ibuprofen I would say the school ought to get sued for such a ridiculously overzealous policy. This zero tolerance policy nonsense ought to be re-evaluated...

“The Buybull is innerrrent.”

Since: Jun 08

King Of Prussia, PA

#10 Jun 26, 2009
Yellow Jasmine wrote:
To my thinking, the SC has dropped the ball...again. If we interpret their ruling, what they seem to be saying is: To the schools - we do not recommend strip searches. But if you do them, there will be no ramifications. What did this solve??? Nada. Thanks.
Again, you're mistaken. The majority did not forbid intrusive searches in schools. They just said you need a halfway reasonable sounding "reason" to strip a 13 year old girl naked...besides being a power mad, sexually sick administrator.
Yellow Jasmine

United States

#11 Jun 26, 2009
writewingproxycontin wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you're mistaken. The majority did not forbid intrusive searches in schools. They just said you need a halfway reasonable sounding "reason" to strip a 13 year old girl naked...besides being a power mad, sexually sick administrator.
If you read this ABC article...I think I still stand by my point. The issue is unresolved. Which seems to occur entirely too frequently where the SC is concerned. They need to learn to fish or cut bait.

“The Buybull is innerrrent.”

Since: Jun 08

Schaumburg, IL

#12 Jun 26, 2009
Yellow Jasmine wrote:
<quoted text>If you read this ABC article...I think I still stand by my point. The issue is unresolved. Which seems to occur entirely too frequently where the SC is concerned. They need to learn to fish or cut bait.
The issue of damages is clear. The individuals are not liable. The lower court will now decide whether the school system will pay damages.

The issue of exactly when school searches are permissible might be unclear - just like "compelling state interest" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" might be unclear - but it is clear the decision has not outlawed intrusive searches of students across the board.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Safford Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Moving to willcox Jul '16 Freak 1
Are you living in Willcox az. ? Jun '16 joan 1
Az Birth Parents who relinquished a child (Jun '12) Jun '16 joan 6
News Fort Bowie historic site (May '10) Jun '16 Bud1 3
the music thread (Mar '12) Jun '16 Musikologist 22
Freeport McMoran Calls Laid Off Workers Losers,... (Feb '09) Apr '16 Not-a-highschool-... 7
Anyone know Scott Andrew Reiser? (Jul '12) Nov '15 Slowpoke 48

Safford Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Safford Mortgages