Today in History
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Jun 13, 2024 - 2:39am
The Green Thread: A place to share info about living a gr...
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jun 12, 2024 - 11:48pm
Trump
- kcar - Jun 12, 2024 - 10:08pm
Derplahoma!
- ScottFromWyoming - Jun 12, 2024 - 9:29pm
June 2024 Photo Theme - Eyes
- fractalv - Jun 12, 2024 - 9:05pm
Florida
- Red_Dragon - Jun 12, 2024 - 7:59pm
Business as Usual
- R_P - Jun 12, 2024 - 6:17pm
NYTimes Connections
- geoff_morphini - Jun 12, 2024 - 4:10pm
Israel
- R_P - Jun 12, 2024 - 3:47pm
NY Times Strands
- rgio - Jun 12, 2024 - 1:10pm
Wordle - daily game
- islander - Jun 12, 2024 - 10:05am
The Obituary Page
- ScottFromWyoming - Jun 12, 2024 - 9:16am
Guantánamo Resorts & Other Fun Trips
- R_P - Jun 12, 2024 - 8:41am
Joe Biden
- rgio - Jun 12, 2024 - 8:28am
Radio Paradise Comments
- miamizsun - Jun 12, 2024 - 8:04am
Name My Band
- oldviolin - Jun 12, 2024 - 5:17am
Right, Left, Right of Left, Left of Right, Center...?
- kurtster - Jun 11, 2024 - 10:36pm
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Jun 11, 2024 - 7:10pm
What Are You Going To Do Today?
- thisbody - Jun 11, 2024 - 3:54pm
Mixtape Culture Club
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 11, 2024 - 3:51pm
Things You Thought Today
- thisbody - Jun 11, 2024 - 2:45pm
Breaking News
- Isabeau - Jun 11, 2024 - 2:29pm
Calling all RP Roku users!
- RPnate1 - Jun 11, 2024 - 12:50pm
Vinyl Only Spin List
- Steely_D - Jun 11, 2024 - 10:40am
Words that should be put on the substitutes bench for a year
- sunybuny - Jun 11, 2024 - 4:38am
Europe
- thisbody - Jun 11, 2024 - 1:23am
Marijuana: Baked News.
- R_P - Jun 10, 2024 - 12:01pm
Climate Change
- R_P - Jun 10, 2024 - 11:45am
Streaming Marantz/HEOS
- rgio - Jun 10, 2024 - 11:43am
Is there any DOG news out there?
- thisbody - Jun 9, 2024 - 12:38pm
Quick! I need a chicken...
- thisbody - Jun 9, 2024 - 10:38am
Song of the Day
- Proclivities - Jun 9, 2024 - 8:34am
China
- R_P - Jun 8, 2024 - 7:42pm
Economix
- Bill_J - Jun 8, 2024 - 5:25pm
Gotta Get Your Drink On
- Antigone - Jun 8, 2024 - 2:42pm
Snakes & streaming images. WTH is going on?
- rasta_tiger - Jun 8, 2024 - 2:16pm
Strips, cartoons, illustrations
- R_P - Jun 8, 2024 - 11:28am
Great guitar faces
- thisbody - Jun 8, 2024 - 10:39am
TEXAS
- maryte - Jun 8, 2024 - 9:21am
NASA & other news from space
- Beaker - Jun 8, 2024 - 8:23am
Live Music
- oldviolin - Jun 7, 2024 - 10:03pm
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Jun 7, 2024 - 9:54pm
Republican Party
- kcar - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:11pm
favorite love songs
- Manbird - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:06pm
Lyrics that are stuck in your head today...
- Manbird - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:04pm
What the hell OV?
- oldviolin - Jun 7, 2024 - 7:42pm
Can you afford to retire?
- JrzyTmata - Jun 7, 2024 - 2:05pm
Old timers, crosswords &
- ScottFromWyoming - Jun 7, 2024 - 12:09pm
Military Matters
- R_P - Jun 7, 2024 - 11:31am
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- Laptopdog - Jun 7, 2024 - 11:09am
Favorite Quotes
- black321 - Jun 7, 2024 - 7:45am
What makes you smile?
- Red_Dragon - Jun 7, 2024 - 6:32am
Artificial Intelligence
- johkir - Jun 6, 2024 - 3:57pm
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing
- oldviolin - Jun 6, 2024 - 12:35pm
What's with the Sitar? ...and Robert Plant
- thisbody - Jun 6, 2024 - 11:16am
songs that ROCK!
- thisbody - Jun 6, 2024 - 10:39am
Democratic Party
- kurtster - Jun 5, 2024 - 9:23pm
Canada
- Beaker - Jun 5, 2024 - 1:58pm
the Todd Rundgren topic
- miamizsun - Jun 5, 2024 - 5:00am
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes.
- MrDill - Jun 5, 2024 - 2:26am
What Makes You Laugh?
- Steely_D - Jun 5, 2024 - 12:44am
Automotive Lust
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 4, 2024 - 9:28pm
Art Show
- Manbird - Jun 4, 2024 - 8:20pm
Bad Poetry
- Isabeau - Jun 4, 2024 - 12:11pm
Classic TV Curiosities
- Isabeau - Jun 4, 2024 - 12:09pm
What's that smell?
- Isabeau - Jun 4, 2024 - 11:50am
Music Videos
- black321 - Jun 4, 2024 - 10:11am
Baseball, anyone?
- ScottFromWyoming - Jun 4, 2024 - 8:28am
Your First Albums
- Manbird - Jun 3, 2024 - 5:42pm
King Crimson
- Steely_D - Jun 3, 2024 - 2:25pm
2024 Elections!
- R_P - Jun 3, 2024 - 10:19am
Your favourite conspiracy theory?
- Beaker - Jun 3, 2024 - 8:00am
Beer
- Red_Dragon - Jun 3, 2024 - 5:20am
Ukraine
- R_P - Jun 2, 2024 - 3:07pm
RP on Twitter
- R_P - Jun 1, 2024 - 2:47pm
|
Index »
Regional/Local »
USA/Canada »
Supreme Court Rulings
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 15, 16, 17 Next |
cc_rider
![cc_rider Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/41446-1383753621.jpg)
Location: Bastrop Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 9:52am |
|
kurtster wrote:Oh goody, the SCOTUS has started its fall session today.
BHO's wisdom shines through once again as his latest appointment, Justice Kagan has already agreed to recuse herself on 25 of the so far 53 cases on the dockett. The potential for 4 - 4 ties now exists, with no ruling letting the lower court's opinion stand.
Why appoint someone who cannot fully participate ? This was bought up during her confirmation, yet it went through anyway. Is this a new way to stack the court ?
Perhaps it was in anticipation of an unusually heavy case load of States challenging the Federal Government such as Arizona HB 1070 and Obamacare. HB 1070 goes through the most decidedly liberal 9th Circuit and a ruling against Arizona in the 9th could end up standing due to a tie. Perhaps the same outcome on the challenges to Obamacare.
This country has been robbed once again of due process by default and poor judgement. But that's only my opinion.
There is some noise being made about temporarily appointing retired Justices to serve in such instances. Makes sense to me. At least she had the decency to recuse herself. In Texas, judges have no compunction ruling on cases in which they have vested financial interest. Course, we elect them too, so we get what we deserve, huh?
|
|
kurtster
![kurtster Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/7904-1510442194.jpg)
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 9:50am |
|
Oh goody, the SCOTUS has started its fall session today.
BHO's wisdom shines through once again as his latest appointment, Justice Kagan has already agreed to recuse herself on 25 of the so far 53 cases on the dockett. The potential for 4 - 4 ties now exists, with no ruling letting the lower court's opinion stand.
Why appoint someone who cannot fully participate ? This was bought up during her confirmation, yet it went through anyway. Is this a new way to stack the court ?
Perhaps it was in anticipation of an unusually heavy case load of States challenging the Federal Government such as Arizona HB 1070 and Obamacare. HB 1070 goes through the most decidedly liberal 9th Circuit and a ruling against Arizona in the 9th could end up standing due to a tie. Perhaps the same outcome on the challenges to Obamacare.
This country has been robbed once again of due process by default and poor judgement. But that's only my opinion.
|
|
hippiechick
![hippiechick Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/29866.png)
Location: topsy turvy land Gender: ![Female](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_female.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Jun 28, 2010 - 11:10am |
|
mzpro5 wrote: Mayor Daley prolly popped a blood vessel with this one.
|
|
mzpro5
![mzpro5 Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/9937-1351532815.jpg)
Location: Budda'spet, Hungry Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Jun 28, 2010 - 9:03am |
|
|
|
Zep
![Zep Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/31960-1644428580.jpg)
Location: Funkytown ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Jun 28, 2010 - 8:54am |
|
|
|
hippiechick
![hippiechick Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/29866.png)
Location: topsy turvy land Gender: ![Female](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_female.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Jun 10, 2010 - 10:52am |
|
|
|
newwavegurly
![newwavegurly Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/10111-1333463190.gif)
![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Jun 25, 2009 - 8:29am |
|
hippiechick wrote:I hope she sues the school district. This is improper behavior, almost like rape, and they should compensate her. From the article text: The court also ruled the officials cannot be held liable in a lawsuit for the search. Different judges around the nation have come to different conclusions about immunity for school officials in strip searches, which leads the Supreme Court to "counsel doubt that we were sufficiently clear in the prior statement of law," Souter said. "We think these differences of opinion from our own are substantial enough to require immunity for the school officials in this case," Souter said. I would think this could hold true for the school district as well, being that we're talking about the law, over-and-above things at school district level.
|
|
hippiechick
![hippiechick Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/29866.png)
Location: topsy turvy land Gender: ![Female](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_female.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Jun 25, 2009 - 8:15am |
|
I hope she sues the school district. This is improper behavior, almost like rape, and they should compensate her.
|
|
bokey
![bokey Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/46797-1393638269.gif)
Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Jun 25, 2009 - 8:07am |
|
Zep wrote:Redding, who now attends college, was 13 when officials at Safford Middle School ordered her to remove her clothes and shake out her underwear because they were looking for pills - the equivalent of two Advils. The district bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs and the school was acting on a tip from another student. WTF?
|
|
maryte
![maryte Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/23760-1497023969.jpg)
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender: ![Female](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_female.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Jun 25, 2009 - 8:07am |
|
Zep wrote: They aren't - they're minors, and minors do not enjoy a lot of rights.
voting, drinking, driving, contracts, sex, to name a few....
Adults aged 18 to 20 do not have the right to drink; minors aged 16 and 17 can be fully licensed to drive in many states.
|
|
Zep
![Zep Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/31960-1644428580.jpg)
Location: Funkytown ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Jun 25, 2009 - 8:04am |
|
More... The ruling, by the way, was 8-1, with only Justice Clarence Thomas holding that it was permissible for school authorities to strip-search students. Court says strip search of Ariz. teenager illegal By JESSE J. HOLLAND The Associated Press Thursday, June 25, 2009 10:58 AM WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a school's strip search of an Arizona teenage girl accused of having prescription-strength ibuprofen was illegal. In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said school officials violated the law with their search of Savana Redding in the rural eastern Arizona town of Safford. Redding, who now attends college, was 13 when officials at Safford Middle School ordered her to remove her clothes and shake out her underwear because they were looking for pills - the equivalent of two Advils. The district bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs and the school was acting on a tip from another student. "What was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear," Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion. "We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable." In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas found the search legal and said the court previously had given school officials "considerable leeway" under the Fourth Amendment in school settings. 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. 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 court also ruled the officials cannot be held liable in a lawsuit for the search. Different judges around the nation have come to different conclusions about immunity for school officials in strip searches, which leads the Supreme Court to "counsel doubt that we were sufficiently clear in the prior statement of law," Souter said. "We think these differences of opinion from our own are substantial enough to require immunity for the school officials in this case," Souter said. The justices also said the lower courts would have to determine whether the Safford United School District No. 1 could be held liable. A schoolmate had accused Redding, then an eighth-grade student, of giving her pills. The school's vice principal, Kerry Wilson, took Redding to his office to search her backpack. When nothing was found, Redding was taken to a nurse's office where she says she was ordered to take off her shirt and pants. Redding said they then told her to move her bra to the side and to stretch her underwear waistband, exposing her breasts and pelvic area. No pills were found. A federal magistrate dismissed a suit by Redding and her mother, April. An appeals panel agreed that the search didn't violate her rights. But last July, a full panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the search was "an invasion of constitutional rights" and that Wilson could be found personally liable. Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the portion of the ruling saying that Wilson could not be held financially liable. "Wilson's treatment of Redding was abusive and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it," Ginsburg said. The case is Safford Unified School District v. April Redding, 08-479.
|
|
Zep
![Zep Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/31960-1644428580.jpg)
Location: Funkytown ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Jun 25, 2009 - 7:58am |
|
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a school's strip search of an Arizona teenage girl accused of having prescription-strength ibuprofen was illegal. The court ruled that school officials violated the law with their search of Savana Redding, who lives in Safford in rural eastern Arizona. ![](http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/090625-scotus-hmed-7a.hmedium.jpg) Redding was 13 when officials at Safford Middle School in 2003 ordered her to remove her clothes and shake out her underwear because they were looking for pills. The district bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs and the school was acting on a tip from another student. The high court, however, said the officials cannot be held liable in a lawsuit for the search. The justices also said the lower courts would have to determine whether the school district could be held liable. During court arguments last April, Redding's lawyer argued to the Supreme Court that such a "intrusive and traumatic" search would be unconstitutional in every circumstance if school administrators were not directly told the contraband was in her underwear. "A school needs to have location-specific information" to put a child through such an embarrassing search, lawyer Adam Wolf said. Wolf said school officials violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches. School officials didn't bother to search her desk or locker, or even question additional students to find out if anyone thought Redding could be hiding drugs in her underwear, he said. "There needs to be suspicion that the object is under the clothes," Wolf said. A 1985 Supreme Court decision that dealt with searching a student's purse has found that school officials need only reasonable suspicions, not probable cause. But the court also warned against a search that is "excessively intrusive." Justices raised concerns at hearing Would it be constitutional if officials were looking for weapons, or drugs like crack, meth or heroin? "Does that make a difference?" Justice Anthony Kennedy asked in April. No, Wolf replied. That leaves school administrators with the choice of embarrassing a child through a search or possibly having other children die while in their care, Justice David Souter said at the time. "With those stakes in mind, why isn't that reasonable?" Souter said. A federal magistrate had earlier dismissed the lawsuit Redding and her mother April brought, and a federal appeals panel agreed that the search didn't violate her rights. But last July, a full panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the search was "an invasion of constitutional rights." The school's lawyer argued that the courts should not limit school officials' ability to search out what they think are dangerous items on school grounds. "We've got to be able to make decisions," lawyer Matthew Wright said. But justices worried that allowing a strip search of school age children might lead to more intrusive searches, like body cavity searches. "There would be no legal basis in saying that was out of bounds," Souter said. Student might become counselor Redding, now a 19-year-old college freshman living in Safford, took her first airplane ride to watch the arguments. "It was pretty overwhelming," she said, standing before a bank of cameras and a few dozen reporters outside the building. She said at the time that she was considering becoming a counselor, which might mean she could end up working in a school. Asked how she would handle the situation as a counselor, she said she would call a student's parents first. "I didn't have that option," she said, outside the court. "I'm a little kid. I didn't have any idea how it would be handled. But my mom would."
|
|
newwavegurly
![newwavegurly Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/10111-1333463190.gif)
![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Apr 22, 2009 - 9:28am |
|
Zep wrote: Yes that would be one test - imminent threat to life of another.
There are no hard and fast rules - there is only what you can defend yourself to if and when you are called to account.
Hence the problem, at least the way I see it. Any time you are required to defend your actions to other people (legally, administratively, or otherwise), you are leaving things open to subjective criteria/reasoning.
|
|
Zep
![Zep Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/31960-1644428580.jpg)
Location: Funkytown ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Apr 22, 2009 - 9:26am |
|
newwavegurly wrote:This is what I'm talking about... school faculty and administration are not "trained" in what those points of "probable" and "cause" are, so what would give them the right to search a student? Would they have to feel threatened? Would they have to think their life was in danger?
I guess I'm saying that determining any hard and fast rules regarding some of this would be difficult, and making sure that the entire school district (staff, administration, and faculty) was up-to-speed on what those "precise points" are would be next to impossible.
Yes that would be one test - imminent threat to life of another. There are no hard and fast rules - there is only what you can defend yourself to if and when you are called to account.
|
|
hippiechick
![hippiechick Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/29866.png)
Location: topsy turvy land Gender: ![Female](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_female.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Apr 22, 2009 - 9:24am |
|
Zep wrote: They aren't - they're minors, and minors do not enjoy a lot of rights.
voting, drinking, driving, contracts, sex, to name a few....
I can understand these "protections" due to the lack of maturity, which has been clinically proven. But students who are stripped searched are being abused. Same with drug testing, since students do not have the choice of quitting school rather than participate, unlike adults.
|
|
newwavegurly
![newwavegurly Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/10111-1333463190.gif)
![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Apr 22, 2009 - 9:22am |
|
Zep wrote:They've handled cases like that before. It goes to some very fine and precise points in what can be considered "probable" and "cause." But those were in Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases, where the parties are likely to be police and suspects - ie, criminal law. They are more likely to have training in procedure, whereas school officials do not.
The suburban school district here, Fairfax County (and probably a lot others too) have a zero tolerance policy on prescription and over-the-counter drugs. They contend that they cannot tell which is which, who has them legitimately and who does not, and therefore as a safety measure for all students, medications must be administered under the supervision of the school nurse. Kids have been suspended for taking some drugs without this notification.
Is that right? I'm not sure that it is, but it leads to policies where officials overstep their authority and begin strip searching because they are zero-tolerant. This is what I'm talking about... school faculty and administration are not "trained" in what those points of "probable" and "cause" are, so what would give them the right to search a student? Would they have to feel threatened? Would they have to think their life was in danger? I guess I'm saying that determining any hard and fast rules regarding some of this would be difficult, and making sure that the entire school district (staff, administration, and faculty) was up-to-speed on what those "precise points" are would be next to impossible.
|
|
Zep
![Zep Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/31960-1644428580.jpg)
Location: Funkytown ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Apr 22, 2009 - 9:20am |
|
hippiechick wrote:Who decided that students aren't entitled to the same rights as adults?
They aren't - they're minors, and minors do not enjoy a lot of rights. voting, drinking, driving, contracts, sex, to name a few....
|
|
hippiechick
![hippiechick Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/29866.png)
Location: topsy turvy land Gender: ![Female](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_female.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Apr 22, 2009 - 9:17am |
|
Who decided that students aren't entitled to the same rights as adults?
|
|
Zep
![Zep Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/31960-1644428580.jpg)
Location: Funkytown ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Apr 22, 2009 - 9:13am |
|
newwavegurly wrote:And what warrants a "very high probable cause of suspicion" in these cases? Unfortunately, because this would involve subjective criteria, there is a lot of gray area and it could wind up causing a lot more problems if school administration/faculty is allowed to determine what those "criteria of suspicion" actually are.
They've handled cases like that before. It goes to some very fine and precise points in what can be considered "probable" and "cause." But those were in Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases, where the parties are likely to be police and suspects - ie, criminal law. They are more likely to have training in procedure, whereas school officials do not. The suburban school district here, Fairfax County (and probably a lot others too) have a zero tolerance policy on prescription and over-the-counter drugs. They contend that they cannot tell which is which, who has them legitimately and who does not, and therefore as a safety measure for all students, medications must be administered under the supervision of the school nurse. Kids have been suspended for taking some drugs without this notification. Is that right? I'm not sure that it is, but it leads to policies where officials overstep their authority and begin strip searching because they are zero-tolerant.
|
|
|