Tweet
Teachers persecuted for strip-searching 13-year old harlot
Outrageous! According to 8 of the 9 liberal judicial activists on the Supreme Court, when teenage girls "go wild" and lift their shirts in front of people, it's just fun and games. Yet when authorities strip-search a 13-year old girl who had asprin and other hard drugs, suddenly it's "unconstitutional!"
The girl in question had previously been caught in possession of Asprin and Aleve, a painkiller which lasts 12 hours:
12 hours! If that's not a hard drug worth fighting a drug war over, I don't know what is. Obviously the reason she was smuggling painkiller was for dulling to pain caused by nightly anal sex S&M orgies. She also had a razor blade, obviously for shaving her few pubic hairs.
This girl is obviously a hardened criminal, and a harlot who probably got a thrill out of being strip-searched. She probably bragged about her shaving job "down there".
Even her name, "Savana" sounds like a stripper's name. Just the sort of harlot Justice Sotomayor will feel "empathy" for.
So how do the juditial activists rationalize their tyranny?
Activist Justices Stevens and Ginsburg write:
Ginsburg goes on:
Justice Souter rationalized his crime against freedom with this nonsense:
Only conservative Justice Thomas was willing to stand up for freedom by supporting the right to strip-search asprin-high 13-year old girls:
The girl in question had previously been caught in possession of Asprin and Aleve, a painkiller which lasts 12 hours:
12 hours! If that's not a hard drug worth fighting a drug war over, I don't know what is. Obviously the reason she was smuggling painkiller was for dulling to pain caused by nightly anal sex S&M orgies. She also had a razor blade, obviously for shaving her few pubic hairs.
This girl is obviously a hardened criminal, and a harlot who probably got a thrill out of being strip-searched. She probably bragged about her shaving job "down there".
Even her name, "Savana" sounds like a stripper's name. Just the sort of harlot Justice Sotomayor will feel "empathy" for.
So how do the juditial activists rationalize their tyranny?
Activist Justices Stevens and Ginsburg write:
Nothing the Court decides today alters this basic framework. It simply applies T.L.O. to declare unconstitutional a strip search of a 13-year-old honors student that was based on a groundless suspicion that she might be hiding medicine in her underwear. This is, in essence, a case in which clearly established law meets clearly outrageous conduct. I have long believed that " ‘[i]t does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights of some magnitude.’ "
Of course it doesn't require a scholar to judge this case, it requires a True Christian™ pastor. Anyone else is too much of a biased activist.Ginsburg goes on:
Any reasonable search for the pills would have ended when inspection of Redding’s backpack and jacket pockets yielded nothing. Wilson had no cause to suspect, based on prior experience at the school or clues in this case, that Redding had hidden pills—containing the equivalent of two Advils or one Aleve—in her underwear or body. To make matters worse, Wilson did not release Redding, to return to class or to go home, after the search. Instead, he made her sit on a chair outside his office for over two hours. At no point did he attempt to call her parent. Abuse of authority of that order should not be shielded by official immunity.
Now they're defining sitting in a chair for two hours as a "stress position" or torture? Remember, she was high on painkillers, she couldn't feel a thing for 12 hours!Justice Souter rationalized his crime against freedom with this nonsense:
Savana’s subjective expectation of privacy against such a search is inherent in her account of it as embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating. The reasonableness of her expectation (required by the Fourth Amendment standard) is indicated by the consistent experiences of other young people similarly searched, whose adolescent vulnerability intensifies the patent intrusiveness of the exposure.
You know what else is "Embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating?" Watching juditial activists spit on the American flag with their freedom-hating judgements! Besides, being 13-years old is ALWAYS "Embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating" so that means that the strip-search had not effect on her.Only conservative Justice Thomas was willing to stand up for freedom by supporting the right to strip-search asprin-high 13-year old girls:
School districts have valid reasons for punishing the unauthorized possession of prescription drugs on school property as severely as the possession of street drugs
And I'm worried that his judgement had little to do with conservatism and more to do with this tendency as a negro to support stripping underage white girls. I weep for America!
Comment