The LA Times has a story on the ruling, citing major points from majority and dissenting opinions. The facts around this case boggle my mind, as does Thomas’ dissenting “logic.”
Let’s look at the sequence of events here:
- Student A accuses Student B of distributing drugs
- Student B’s pockets and personal effects are searched
- No drugs or indication of the presence of drugs are found
- Student B is ordered to bare all to search her undergarments
Now let’s consider Thomas’ words:
Officials had searched the girl’s backpack and found nothing, Thomas said. “It was eminently reasonable to conclude the backpack was empty because Redding was secreting the pills in a place should thought no one would look,” Thomas said.
So it is “eminently reasonable” that, if in response to a baseless accusation you find no evidence, clearly the target is a criminal mastermind. Are you fucking kidding me?
You may be tempted to smirk at Clarence Thomas being so dedicated to the idea of searching a 13-year-old’s underwear – clear late-night talk show fodder, yes. The insidious nature of this idea is quite serious, however.
Thomas warned that the majority’s decision could backfire. “Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments,” he said. “Nor will she be the last after today’s decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school.”
The fact that this man has any power over our legal system at all continues to horrify me. The only possible logical interpretation of this statement is that every school should institute daily cavity searches immediately. The preteen agents of chaos will clearly be undermining the very fabric of our society, if word of this ruling gets out, by shoving Advil up their ass. We must think of the children by violating them!
Thankfully, the high court has struck down this idiocy on its own (lack of) merits. Thomas’ dissent amounts to the NeoCon idea that no right or privacy is protected, because someone out there might one day go a step further than we currently allow for. This is an endgame of no rights and no privacy, and another tired repetition of “if there’s no evidence, it just means the obviously guilty criminal is rly smrt!”
“The innocent have nothing to hide” doesn’t mean the same thing in Thomas’ world as it does in mine, I think…