Scalia, Roberts, Alito have acknowledged a penumbra of privacy

Rex_Goodheart

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-26-09 11:23 AM
Original message

Scalia, Roberts, Alito have acknowledged a penumbra of privacy

implied by the Constitution.

From the opinion syllabus in the Safford Unified School District case:

Savana�s actions in their presence necessarily exposed her breasts and pelvic area to some degree, and both subjective and reasonable societal expectations of personal privacy support the treatment of such a search as categorically distinct, requiring distinct elements of justification on the part of school authorities for going beyond a search of outer clothing and belongings. Savana�s subjective expectation of privacy is inherent in her account of it as embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating. The reasonableness of her expectation is indicated by the common reaction of other young people similarly searched, whose adolescent vulnerability intensifies the exposure�s patent intrusiveness. Its indignity does not outlaw the search, but it does implicate the rule that �the search �reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.� �

The search was ruled unreasonable, and thus a violation of the Fourth Amendment, because her privacy had been violated without compelling reason. The eight justices confirmed by written opinion, without explicitly stating so, that a penumbra of privacy is basic to the rights of American citizens, and that the Fourth Amendment is there to protect it. There can be no such thing as an "unreasonable" search UNLESS there is an understanding that people are entitled to privacy where a compelling reason to override it does not exist.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

elleng

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-26-09 11:35 AM
Response to Original message

1. Maybe

'both subjective and reasonable societal expectations of personal privacy.'

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tularetom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-26-09 11:41 AM
Response to Original message

2. WTF is wrong with that idiot Thomas?

Or did Scalia give him the wrong marching orders just to make him look stupid?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

peace frog

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-26-09 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #2

4. If there's legally a moral right side to any case

you may be sure Thomas will take the other side of it, every frickin' time. He was appointed to the SC to do just that, and he obediently follows his mandate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dinger

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-26-09 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #2

6. he's a perv, and he likes hearing details

Sick bastard.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

HughMoran

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-26-09 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #2

7. He want's exclusive right to the title of most vile right-wing ass wipe justice

:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Winterblues

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-26-09 11:46 AM
Response to Original message

3. Didn't Scalia say there was no right to privacy within the US constitution?

Not concerning this case but in a previous statement. Also what about searching a person without warrant, is that no longer even a consideration?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

rampart

(192 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-26-09 11:48 AM
Response to Original message

5. my local forum conservative types

are praising clarence thomas.

the thinking seems to be that if school authorities can not search they have no option but to call in police for a "thorough search." i can think of several options, starting with parental involvement or some reasonable alternative to "zero tolerance."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

lolly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-26-09 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #5

8. Wouldn't the police just laugh?

Here is where the difference between idiotic "zero tolerance" rules on campus would run smack into reality.

Imagine a principal calling in the police--we need you to strip search someone--uh oh, does she have a knife? a gun? heroin?--um, no, someone said she might have a couple advils in her underpants---ummmm, we'll get back to you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 02nd 2024, 10:11 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.