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

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 ...

[RickDeckard]

Seriously, over ibuprofen? sounds a bit overzealous to say the least...

[Yellow Jasmine]

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.

[x0x0x]

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]

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]

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]

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]

the school staff that strip searched her should be awarded a medal for bravery- that's one nasty looking fat girl!

[x0x0x]

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?

[RickDeckard]

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...

[writewingproxyco ntin]

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]

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.

[writewingproxyco ntin]

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.