A couple months back, I insinuated that Antonin Scalia was “objectively pro-molestation” due to his line of questioning in a case before the Court. Today, a correction. Even Scalia has limits:
A public school violated the privacy rights of a teenage girl who had to disrobe on suspicion she had ibuprofen pills, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in its first decision on student strip searches.
By an 8-1 vote, the justices upheld a ruling that the school and its officials violated the U.S. constitutional right that protects against unreasonable search and seizure.
The ruling by the nation’s high court was a major defeat for school officials who had defended the strip search as necessary for student safety, school order and combating a growing drug problem
There was a partial dissent, with only two in the majority saying that the school officials could be held liable. Along with the cowardice of shielding the school from liability, there was a troubling subtext of “well, if it was something more dangerous than Ibuprofen…”. But one positive thing about cynicism is that low expectations are easy to reach, and if you’d asked me before the ruling I’d have bet 5-4 against the violated girl.
So, 8-1, and Scalia wasn’t it. Who was odd man out?
Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the part of the ruling that Redding’s privacy rights had been violated. Thomas said the ruling “grants judges sweeping authority to second-guess the measures that these officials take to maintain discipline in their schools and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge.”
Clarence Thomas: objectively pro-molestation.