Wowee. So the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in the case of 13 year-old Savana Redding, finding that her constitutional rights were violated when her school strip-searched her in order to search her for Ibuprofen, which she didn't have, incidentally. It was an 8-1 decision, and the lone dissenter was, of course, Clarence Thomas, because he likey the panties:
In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the search had been legal and
the court previously had given school officials "considerable leeway" under the
Fourth Amendment in school settings.
In this case, 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 she thought no one would look," he said.
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."
Right, so show me them panties, said Clarence!
No, he didn't say those words exactly.
Perhaps he would have voted differently if he hadn't been giggling:
This leads Justice Stephen Breyer to query whether this is all that
different from asking Redding to "change into a swimming suit or your gym
clothes," because, "why is this a major thing to say strip down to your
underclothes, which children do when they change for
But Breyer just isn't letting go. "In my
experience when I was 8 or 10 or
12 years old, you know, we did take our
clothes off once a day, we changed for
gym, OK? And in my experience, too,
people did sometimes stick things in my
followed by explosive laughter. In fact, I have
never seen Justice Clarence
Thomas laugh harder. Breyer tries to recover: "Or
not my underwear.
Whatever. Whatever. I was the one who did it? I don't know. I
mean, I don't
think it's beyond human experience."
Haha, the Supreme Court is so silly!
Good ruling, though.