The Freedom Bulletin

The Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 that it was unconstitutional for a school to strip search a 13-year-old girl out of suspicion that she had aspirin. This is a happy day for the privacy rights of all Americans, and I applaud this decision.

Unfortunately, the court found 7 to 2 that school officials did not have to pay damages to Savana Redding, now 19. I would have had them pay as much money as possible, and maybe even go to jail.

I agree with the majority’s decision that the search violates the 4th Amendment. For reference, the amendment goes as follows:

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 an Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If this search wasn’t unreasonable, I don’t know what is. The contraband in question was equivalent to two Advil, hardly dangerous. The search was extremely invasive, and there was no warrant. School officials have taken their concern with students’ safety way too far, at the expense of students’ dignity, privacy, and freedom to make their own decisions. I don’t see anything wrong with a 13-year-old being allowed to carry aspirin and make her own decisions about whether she wants to take it. Even worse, though, is the fact that Savana did not even have aspirin on her! She was humiliated and violated for nothing.

This search was borderline sexual abuse. I understand that it was not done for sexual purposes but out of an obsession with safety at the expense of everything else, but being strip searched should be humiliating to people of any age and gender. I am glad the court (with the exception of Justice Clarence Thomas) decided this is not acceptable in America.

Update: Here’s a PDF of the decision.

The Supreme Court is going to hear the case of a 13-year-old girl who was strip searched by her school because of a false accusation that she had aspirin. Savana Redding and her parents sued the school and the assistant principal for ordering her to be strip searched after another student accused her of possessing prescription-strength ibuprofen. She and her parents called the search humiliating and unconstitutional, and who can blame them?

The school’s actions are wrong on so many levels.

• First, it is wrong for a school to ban students from possessing or taking medication. People of all ages have a right to decide what medicines they want to take and to take those medicines whenever and wherever they want. A teenager is plenty old enough to make her own decisions about medicine.
• Second, the school had no warrant for the search. The Fourth Amendment forbids all searches for which there is no warrant. The Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that this protection applies to students, even though such a thing shouldn’t be necessary, since there is nothing in the Constitution that would suggest that students are exempt from the Bill of Rights.
• Third, I really don’t think strip searches should ever be legal, even if there is a warrant. Nothing can justify that kind of humiliation.
• Fourth, Savana didn’t even have the pills that the school had unjustly banned! I think that if you cause another person any kind of pain, inconvenience, or humiliation in order to search for something, and it turns out the person didn’t have the thing you were searching for, you should have to pay restitution to the victim. A strip search is humiliating; therefore it is punishment. Therefore, the school punished Savana even though she did nothing wrong. This is clearly unjust, and the school should have to undo the punishment by paying her a large sum of money.

All in all, the assistant principal and school committed a grievous wrong and flouted the Constitution. They should be punished severely.

Last year the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Savana’s favor, but the school appealed to the Supreme Court, saying that the ruling “would create enormous confusion for school officials in trying to determine when and how searches may now properly be conducted.” Um, how about no warrant, no search? What’s confusing about that?

The Supreme Court will hear the case in April.

I completely agree with the Supreme Court’s decision that the Second Amendment protects individuals’ rights to bear arms. In the weeks after the decision, I have read some pretty stupid arguments against the ruling. Some people seem to assume that the right to own a gun is the same as the right to shoot whoever you want with that gun. In an editorial for the Boston Herald, author Mitch Albom writes:

“It means people shooting first and asking questions later. It means domestic arguments now resolved with pistols. It means thousands more guns out there, which means thousands more guns stolen and used for the wrong reasons. It means 4-year-olds finding Daddy’s gun. It means teenagers, angry and misguided, grabbing guns from their parents’ closets. It means workplace violence. It means suicides.”

No, it doesn’t. The Supreme Court’s decision simply means that (basically) anyone who wants can own a gun. It does not mean that people can shoot others without asking questions or commit violence at work or at home. It does not mean (necessarily) that more guns will be stolen, or that kids will misuse guns. Teaching children how guns work and why they are dangerous is a much better way to keep safe than banning guns. Plus, isn’t it a little ageist to call teenagers “angry and misguided”? I’m sure some adults are “angry and misguided” and that some teens are calm and have good judgement.

In a Boston Globe article, Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago was quoted as saying,

“If they think that’s the answer, then they’re greatly mistaken… Then why don’t we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West? You have a gun and I have a gun, and we’ll settle in the streets.”

Again, the Court’s ruling gives people the right to own guns. It doesn’t give people the right to settle their disputes with violence. It doesn’t give people the right to shoot anyone! Why would you want to do away with the court system just because people can own guns?

Additionally, the ruling is not supposed to be an “answer” to anything. I consider myself a deontologist, which means that I judge what is right and wrong based on people’s duties and rights, not on the consequences of actions. It seems like the Supreme Court justices (at least the 5 in the majority) were also being deontologists when they made this ruling.

Here is how my logic goes: Owning a gun is not immoral, and it does not violate anyone else’s rights. Therefore, individuals have a right to own guns, and the government has a corresponding duty to respect that right. Shooting an innocent person, on the other hand, does violate that person’s rights, and that is why that, not owning a gun, is illegal. Laws should be made to protect people’s rights, not to get good consequences. Banning the ownership of handguns would be wrong no matter how many good consequences it had, because it would be violating people’s rights.

I have never fired a gun in my life. Yet because I am a deontologist, I wholeheartedly support the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court has struck down plans to use race as a factor in assigning students to public schools. It was a 5 to 4 decision, and Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. I agree with the Court’s decision. Forced integration is wrong, and so is anti-white dicscrimination, which is becoming all too common in today’s society. If anything, I think the Court should have made a less wishy-washy ruling – schools are still allowed to consider race to a limited extent in certain situations.

For the full story, see CNN.

Despite Kerry and the Democrats’ filibuster threats, Samuel Alito has been sworn in as America’s newest Supreme Court justice! Congratulations to Justice Alito, as I am sure he will be a satisfactory judge on the highest court of the land.

After all the fuss of the past few months, Theo Epstein will be returning as the Red Sox general manager! Theo has done an excellent job as GM so far, and I’m glad that he’ll be keeping the job. Another bit of good news is that Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito has been approved by the Senate Judicial Committee and is likely to be confirmed by the full Senate. Although I would have preferred Harriet Miers, who is an unmarried, conservative woman, I think Alito will make a decent Supreme Court justice.

Sorry for not posting sooner; I have many things to say but have been too busy to say them until now. First of all, happy belated birthday to Benjamin Franklin, who turned 300 on Tuesday. Happy birthday as well to Robert E. Lee, the brave, brilliant, and charming Confederate commander-in-chief, who turns 199 years old today!

I did not watch the Golden Globes because “24″ was on at the same time, but I would like to congratulate Hugh Laurie of “House” for his win in the category of best actor in a television drama. The nominations for the BAFTA awards have been announced, and “The Chronicles of Narnia” has been nominated in three categories: costume design, visual effects, and makeup and hair. “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” is nominated in the same categories, but “Narnia” is better (not by a huge amount, but by a substantial margin), and it is way better than almost any of the other movies that have been nomiated in any category. It’s too bad that “Narnia” wasn’t nominated for best picture or any other categories, but, knowing the bizarre tastes of film critics, I’m slightly surprised that it was nominated for these three categories. If you would like, click for the full list of nominees. Go Narnia!

Now for some Supreme Court commentary: the Court did well with its ruling in the doctor-assisted suicide case. People have a right to die if they want to, since dying isn’t morally wrong. Therefore, they have a right to pay someone to help them die, and doctors have a right to kill someone if that’s what the person told them to do. Why would you pay someone if they weren’t going to do what you told them? On this ruling I actually agree with the liberal judges! What a scary thought!

The Supreme Court justices were sort of wimpy on their ruling about the New Hampshire law that required parents to be notified before minors can get an abortion. This law should be struck down, as it is un-individualistic and imposes an undue burden on minors that do not want a baby. Yes, it was immoral of the minors to get pregnant in the first place (unless they were raped), but getting an abortion is the right thing to do if one is pregnant, since babies are yucky, and it is more moral not to have a baby than to have one. I support abortion because it is a way to mitigate an immoral situation. Another issue on which I side with the liberals! However, my father tells me that I support abortion for fascist reasons, and I like to think that he’s right!

Finally, did I mention Osama bin Laden’s new tape? On Al-Jazeera, Osama declared that he plans to attack the US, but is offering us a truce. It’s the first time he’s been heard from in over a year! I’ve always though he was alive. For the full story, go to CNN.