The strip-search decision and Thomas's dissent

[Anonymous]

The Supreme Court ruled, 8 - 1, that the strip-search of then 13 year-old Savana Redding was unconstitutional. Justice Thomas was the lone dissenter. Describing his opinion msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31544930/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/) wrote

"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."

Let me repeat part of that: "Nor will she be the last". Do I misread, or does that say she was actually guilty, although no pills were found anywhere on her? Is Thomas guilty of libel, or is my reaction just a symptom of my dislike of Thomas for political reasons?

Perhaps the subjunctive "would" of the earlier part outweighs the indicative sound of the later phrase. How do you read it? Don't forget that this is part of a Supreme Court dissent, not a quickly written blog.

[jsteele]

Thomas was also the lone dissenter on the recent Voting Rights Act case. It used to be that he always voted with Scalia. Now, he is voting even more conservatively than Scalia. I think something is seriously warped in the man's head.

Vis-a-vis the recent discussion of Sotomayer and whether her background would influence her decision-making, I wonder if the fact that Roberts is the father of a young girl might have influenced his opinion? Alito and Scalia also have a daughters. I don't know about the others, but Thomas has no children. I wonder if that made him less empathetic?

[Anonymous]

The fact that this was a case, and that the school actually thought they had a right to do this, is wildly disturbing. Thank god it was declared unconstitutional. In addition to being a wild eyed reactionary, I don't think Thomas thinks his decisions through anymore. Wow -- a supreme court justice assigning guilt when none was found?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that this was a case, and that the school actually thought they had a right to do this, is wildly disturbing.

Not if you've spent any time in small town Arizona, it's not.

[Anonymous]

Somewhat related: In the decision on cross-examination of forensic experts the line-up was strange. Scalia wrote the decision, with Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, and Thomas concurring, while Kennedy wrote a strong dissent, with Alito, Breyer, and Roberts. I'm glad to see that there are cases where the usual, predictable, liberal/conservative split breaks down, but it leaves me wondering how one interprets it. I know that Scalia wrote about the Constitution's clear requirement that the accused be allowed to confront witnesses and Kennedy wrote about the issue of expense to states, so was it principle versus practicality, or were there other considerations?

I'll look for the text, but if anyone has already read the decisions, perhaps you can save me the effort.