Comments on: Thomas Strips Sense From Search
Add a Comment See all 121 Comments
- You betcha! LOL
- Reply to this comment
- He wasn't picked because of affirmative action! He was picked because of his CONSERVATIVE Judicial Positions.. the fact he was black served to prevent the kind of oversight he should have gotten before he was put on the bench.
- Reply to this comment
- So what other rights and freedoms are you willing to give up so some School Administrator can look for Ibuprofen? You do what all fanatics do... you take the situation and twist it, mix in a VERY healthy dose of blind fear and toss in a lot of Police State mentality, posing it all as a solution to our Drug problem. You are as sick as Thomas!!
- Reply to this comment
- We have the self-serving Arlen Specter to thank for Clarence Thomas' presence on the SCOTUS. I will never forget, nor forgive him for, his treatment of Anita Hill during the Thomas confirmation hearings. Ms Hill told the sickening truth about Thomas but the boys in the club said she was being hypersensitive and should "get over it."
There's a lot of anger here directed toward Clarence Thomas. Where was that outrage in 1991? - Reply to this comment
- So you think the framers of our Constitution wouldn't see a problem with school administrators doing to this child what they did? You know so very little of our History or the Men who started this great nation. They would have taken those administrators out an horse whipped them along with Thomas!!
- Reply to this comment
- When Judges stop being Human Beings and considering the Human Factors in their decisions they stop being Judges and become ROBOTS... much like what YOU have become. I worked in Law for over 30 years, met a lot like you and never did ONE of them make a positive impact on the Country or their fellow man... just money changers for greed.
- Reply to this comment
- Examples of Why Restricted Public Zones likes Schools, Airplanes, and Courtrooms need Special Powers (subject to personal search and baggage search) in order to Protect Children and the General Public:
Suggested Research Areas: Murder by Gunshots of Houston Police Officer Rodney Johnson by suspect taken into custody (after ineffective pat-down search). See also: Columbine Massacre, Virginia Tech Massacre, Univ. of Texas Tower Sniper Massacre, and Box Cutters (sharp-edge weapons) used to murder during 9/11 Massacres
See also:
Child and Adolescent Drug Abuse Statistics
Did you Know Drug Abuse is Still a Major Problem???
? An estimated 19.9 million Americans aged 12 or older were current users of an illicit drug in 2007. This estimate represents 8.0 percent of the population.
? An estimated 70.9 million Americans reported being current users of a tobacco product in 2007, a prevalence rate of 28.6% of the population 12 years and older.
? Marijuana is the most widely used illicit substance in this country. In 2007, 14.4 million people were current users of marijuana.
? Vicodin is one of the drugs most commonly abused by adolescents. In 2008, 15.4% of 12th graders reporting using a prescription drug for non-medical purposes in the last year.
(Source: NIDA, www.nida.nih.gov, accessed March 18, 2009. Data provided from the NIDA funded Monitoring the Future: National Survey Results on Drug Use and the SAMHSA funded 2007 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.)
9/11 /sample excerpts: Pepper Spray/Mace and Edge Weapons
"Reports from two flight attendants in the coach cabin, Betty Ong and Madeline "Amy" Sweeney, tell us most of what we know about how the hijacking happened.
Also at 8:25, and again at 8:29, Amy Sweeney got through to the American Flight Services Office in Boston but was cut off after she reported someone was hurt aboard the flight. Three minutes later, Sweeney was reconnected to the office and began relaying updates to the manager, Michael Woodward.
American also began getting identifications of the hijackers, as Ong and then Sweeney passed on some of the seat numbers of those who had gained unauthorized access to the cockpit.
Sweeney calmly reported on her line that the plane had been hijacked; a man in first class had his throat slashed; two flight attendants had been stabbed-one was seriously hurt and was on oxygen while the other's wounds seemed minor; a doctor had been requested; the flight attendants were unable to contact the cockpit; and there was a bomb in the cockpit. Sweeney told Woodward that she and Ong were trying to relay as much information as they could to people on the ground.
At 8:41, Sweeney told Woodward that passengers in coach were under the impression that there was a routine medical emergency in first class.
At 8:44, Gonzalez reported losing phone contact with Ong. About this same time Sweeney reported to Woodward, "Something is wrong. We are in a rapid descent . . . we are all over the place." Woodward asked Sweeney to look out the window to see if she could determine where they were. Sweeney responded: "We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low." Seconds later she said, "Oh my God we are way too low." The phone call ended." - 9/11 Commission Report [Local]
? Flight attendant made calm call to report hijacking
"The Times' story attributes the account to an investigative document compiled by the FBI and taken from a phone call Madeline Amy Sweeney made to a ground manager at Logan International Airport in Boston. American Airlines officials told The Times that phone calls are not typically recorded, meaning the conversation was likely reconstructed by the FBI from interviews with Michael Woodward, the manager who took the phone call.
"This plane has been hijacked," Sweeney said, according to the FBI report, in a call that came shortly after the Flight 11 was commandeered.
Two flight attendants had already been stabbed, she said, while identifying her coworkers by their crew numbers. "A hijacker also cut the throat of a business-class passenger, and he appears to be dead," she said.
The Times reported officials at American Airlines said information about the phone call was turned over to the FBI. "The FBI has told us not to discuss anything," said airline spokesman John Hotard." - CNN (09/20/01) - Reply to this comment
- This guy should never have been seated bush sr. in confer.hearings he was acused of sexual harrasment and was acused of having porn i believe child porn in his office, and i remember at the time his reason for having it said he was reviewing a case and forgot to return anyone who knows ct. procedure knows thats B.S. I believe he is a sick minded man !!
- Reply to this comment
- Why do you assume that everyone who stands for the 4th Amendment is a Liberal?
Is it because the only Amendment that neos support is the 2nd Amendment?
Do you not think that moderates and REAL Conservatives support the 4th Amendment as well.
You're an idiot. - Reply to this comment
- No one should be in the child's undergarments. They are taught not to allow that...then the school does it and it's ok. If I were the parent I would be furious.
This is craziness. - Reply to this comment
- mikejacobskc
I hope you also live to be 110 years old...and spend every day of it in the tortured agony that twisted evil scum like you deserves(and Justice Thomas too)
Karma can be a real B!TCH - Reply to this comment
- The most tragically obscene aspect of this truly sordid affair is that this racist lunatic occupies the so-called ?Black Seat? so named for the late Thurgood Marshall, a truly great jurist (although Thomas often seems more interested in occupying the ?Nazi Seat? currently held by Antonin Scalia, another disastrous GOP appointee to the Court.
Thomas is only on the Court thanks to a nifty little soundbyte about his confirmation hearings being ?a high-tech lynching,? a phrase calculated to stir white guilt about the oppression of blacks, and to the nauseating pandering of Sen. Orrin Hatch, an odious little individual whose own sexual proclivities should probably be closely examined.
Thomas should have been rejected, not because of his sexual harassment of Anita Hill, but for his insistence under oath that he has never...at any time...discussed Roe v. Wade with anyone, an obvious lie, or worse...the truth...and this product of misplaced affirmative action who paradoxically hates affirmative action, actually never once discussed the most talked-about Supreme Court decision of the 20th Century.
I choose to be charitable and consider him a base liar rather than a total moron.
But I could be wrong... - Reply to this comment
-
- It is at times like this that we must ask ourselves...WHAT WOULD RUSH LIMBAUGH DO?
As his lying blowhard bufooness has stated many times...ALL DRUGGIES AND IBPROFIN PUSHERS (or in the case of no evidence being found) SUSPECTED IBPROFIN PUSHERS...SHOULD BE SENT UP THE RIVER. NO EXCEPTIONS...EXCEPT HIMSELF!
No hypocrisy there!
It would seem that Clarence Thomas, faithful psychotic Republican toady that he is, has gone so far in his far-right zeal that he now consults the grotesquely obese oracle on legal matters before the Supreme Court.
That is the only plausible explanation I can come up with for his bizarre dissent in this case.
Granted, Justice Thomas clearly needs somebody to do his thinking for him...BUT RUSH LIMBAUGH & THE LUNATIC FRINGE?
Or to hear them tell it...the LUNATIC MAJORITY!
The law is supposed to be about right and wrong...about justice.
We don?t need Clarence Thomas delivering weird interpretations of the Constitution and seeking ways to rationalize and render the criminal acts of his Republican masters not quite technically illegal... WE ALREADY HAVE ANTONIN SCALIA FOR THAT!
- It is at times like this that we must ask ourselves...WHAT WOULD RUSH LIMBAUGH DO?
- simpleguy234: Angry? Outraged? Um... Don't think so. Thomas lost, and lost big. Even Scalia and Roberts and Alito didn't buy his B.S. On the other hand, the losers seem to be the angry ones.
- Reply to this comment
- And another thing...
Why was the decision so vague? Wrong..yes. Abusive...yes. They left it open for debate. Therefore they all get to keep their jobs knowing that another case will come up out of this that will get more national attention and more hours on our tax dollars. How about a ruling that states that each school must inform parents of their individual policies, and if any search is conducted beyond those policies it must be consented to by a search order issued by a judge in the city/county of the student's residence. Oh...wait a minute...that is power that lays within a State's jurisdiction.....hmmmmm.... - Reply to this comment
- This whole bickering is a bunch of mindless fools who just want to take one side or the other. Doesnt anyone have some common sense here? Along with common sense, doesnt anyone have a sense of law? Yes it was ethically wrong to strip search this girl. It was also wrong to bring this to the FEDERAL SUPREME COURT!!! States and localities must dictate these laws. You put the federal govt in charge and we have multitudes of schools where the govt dictates the rules, not the parents. I'm not by any means saying that this was ok for the admin of the school to do, yet the rules of each school must be known to the parents of the child who attends them. If a parent decides to send their kid to a school with a no tolerance policy and it dictates that a child may be searched at any time by any means, then that is their CONSTITUTIONAL right!!! By allowing the federal supreme court to step in, this becomes a FEDERAL matter, in which case the PEOPLE of the locality of ANY SCHOOL IN THE UNITED STATES have NO RIGHTS to decide what is ok and not ok in their school of choice.... Everyone seems to want to bash the right wing guy, but if you really think about the matter of LAW, this decision could be really BAD for all of us....
- Reply to this comment
- I hope Justice Thomas lives to be 110 years old and serves until the day he dies.......just because he gets underneath liberals' skin. Looking at the posts and comments makes me laugh with glee. The angrier and more outraged you liberals are, the happier I am (and Justice Thomas too)
- Reply to this comment
-
- mikejacobskc
I hope you also live to be 110 years old...and spend every day of it in the tortured agony that twisted evil scum like you deserves(and Justice Thomas too)
Karma can be a real B!TCH
- Why do you assume that everyone who stands for the 4th Amendment is a Liberal?
Is it because the only Amendment that neos support is the 2nd Amendment?
Do you not think that moderates and REAL Conservatives support the 4th Amendment as well.
You're an idiot.
- mikejacobskc
- To think that a judge elevated to the Supreme Court would try and excuse or condone such behavior on the part of the school folks who basically strip searched a 13 year old, is in itself bizarre.
To offer the rationale that they might have found something, therefore providing retroactive probable cause for the strip search, is quite simply, stoooopid, and utterly without constitutional foundation.
Although Thomas' ruling is one we might expect from a Bush/Cheney crime syndicate era judge, it still defies belief.
What's next judge, lining all the children up against the wall and frisking and strip searching each of them at the beginning of school each day? They just might find something, but then they'd only have about 10% of the kids to search the next day, as the rest of the parents would rightfully refuse to send their children back.
Has anyone checked this judge for schizophrenia or alzeimers? - Reply to this comment
- Can a Supreme Court Justice be removed from the bench?
- Reply to this comment
- This happened in Safford, AZ., in the middle of "Morman country" of S.E. Arizona, and over ibuprofen for crissakes!
Personally, I hope the violated girl gets $200 Million! - Reply to this comment
- You Thomas defenders: So your position is that if any troublemaking kid gets caught breaking the rules and decides to blame anyone they have a grudge against, we should take these 11 or 12 year old kids' clothes off "just in case"? You'll have all the honest kids lined up waiting to be stripped and "searched" while the ones that need attention are smoking and joking about it.
That's why we have the following, it's called the 4th amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Noone swore an oath or submitted a credible affirmation nor was there probable cause.
You righties just LOVE to suspend the Constitution for your own purposes and to fit your own notions, just like Bush and Cheney.
Oh, except the second amendment. Or any other part that supports your viewpoint this minute.
Unbelieveable that ANYONE could defend this absolutely idiotic "justice". - Reply to this comment
How gold pays for 