Who Hijacked Our Country

Friday, June 26, 2009

Clarence Thomas: “Get Your Clothes Off, Bitch!”

Thank God the Supreme Court still has one — ONE!!! — purveyor of decency. You’d expect those leftwing pansies on the Court to fall for that liberal hogwash about “Constitutional rights.”

But what happened to Roberts, Alito, Scalia? They’ve turned into a bunch of pussy RINOs. They're a DISGRACE to the Republican Party! Some filthy teenage drug addict has the “right” not to be strip-searched???

PSSSST — Clarence, didja get a good view? [wink]

In 2003, a 13-year-old girl was accused by her school of having possession of — brace yourself now — prescription-strength Ibuprofen. [gasp]

Vice Principal Kerry Wilson brought the girl into his office to search her backpack. No Ibuprofen was found. She was sent to a nurse’s office and ordered by the nurse and an administrative assistant to take off her shirt and pants. Then they told her to move her bra to the side and to stretch her underwear waistband, so they could get a gooooood look. Damn it, where’s she hiding those drugs?!?!?!?!?

Liberals and Pagans are all whining about this strip-search being “unconstitutional.” Fortunately, Clarence Thomas was having none of that. Our Last Bastion of Decency said:

“It was eminently reasonable to conclude the backpack was empty because Redding was secreting the pills in a place she thought no one would look. Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments. Nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school.”

Now, without trying to alarm anybody needlessly — those Ibuprofen tablets are still at large. And let me close with this sobering statistic: 98% of all OxyContin addicts started off on Ibuprofen.

cross-posted at Bring On The Trolls!

Labels: ,

18 Comments:

Blogger Carlos said...

When I saw that story last night on the news, all I could think about was how I'd love to sit down with ol' Clarence and have him try to convince me that school employees have a right to strip search a minor. Then I'd pimp slap him.

June 26, 2009 at 2:26 AM  
Blogger Ricardo said...

I found it very telling that the only guy who was for this was Thomas. Suddenly the Anita Hill thing makes sense. Have schools become a prison system? If that's the case why not body cavity searches?

And since when is ibuprofen contraband?

June 26, 2009 at 5:09 AM  
Blogger Enemy of the Republic said...

Clarence Thomas is sick and probably incompetent. How can we get him removed from the Supreme Court based on those two reasons?

June 26, 2009 at 5:24 AM  
Blogger Randal Graves said...

This is why Rush hides his pills in the body cavity of his latest Caribbean trick.

Oh great, now I gave those Grave Threats To American Decency an idea. Quick, delete this comment in case any pinko addicts are reading.

June 26, 2009 at 7:28 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Carlos: Clarence Thomas definitely needs a good pimpslapping. He keeps getting worse, and he'll probably live another 30 years.

Ricardo: It sure sounds like schools are becoming like prisons. I'm glad I went to school a long time ago before all this shit started happening.

Enemy: I don't know if there's any way to get a Supreme Court justice off the court. He'll probably sit there doddering 'til he's 90.

Randal: So that's where Rush hides his pills? Hey, that's a great idea. I'm gonna, er, I mean...

June 26, 2009 at 11:45 AM  
Blogger Snave said...

I work in schools, and I find the thought of strip-searching a kid without probably cause to be frightening and repulsive. Shame on Clarence!

As for how long Justices get to serve on the Supreme Court, I think being on the Court ought to be somewhat akin to having a driver's license. I think they at least should have to be reviewed every so often and get re-approved. These are not elected positions, and I don't believe being stuck with some rigid knucklehead for 40 or more years, regardless of where he or she is on the political spectrum, should be part of the equation.

I see lifetime SC appointments as a huge, major flaw. I am glad we at least get to elect our President and Congress, and that none of THEM are appointed for life... ! Maybe we could:

1) Approve the nominee initially for a term of something like eight or ten years.
2) At the end of that time period, the Justice would then be subjected to a full review and re-approval process.
3) If approved, the Justice gets another term. If not approved, the president nominates someone else and the approval process starts for the new nominee.
4) There wouldn't be a recall process "just because" (like if the Justice was a lefty facing a right-leaning Congress or vice-versa), but if the Justice was having obvious mental health issues such a recall could be mounted.

I'm sure my idea is fraught with problems, like what happens when a left-leaning Justice's term expires and a right-wing Congress and president don't reapprove him or her, or vice-versa. But maybe that isn't much worse than when a lefty Justice retires during a right-wing administration or vice-versa.

Anyway, I don't think lifetime appointments are the way to go with the U.S. Supreme Court... What to do about this? Is there anything that can be done?

June 26, 2009 at 12:04 PM  
Blogger Enemy of the Republic said...

But the guy is a total sicko!

June 26, 2009 at 1:56 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Snave: I agree, "frightening and repulsive" are good descriptions. As far as what to do about a dysfunctional Supreme Court justice, it's hard to know. During the '60s and '70s conservatives wanted to get rid of liberal justices, and I'm glad they weren't able to. I really can't think of any solution that wouldn't be misused by the majority party.

Enemy: Yup, he's a sicko.

June 26, 2009 at 5:02 PM  
Anonymous Thomas said...

If supreme court justices were subject to periodic review by agents of the general populace, we'd still have Jim Crow laws and segregated bathrooms.

June 26, 2009 at 6:08 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Thomas: Unfortunately you're right. It sucks when we get stuck with somebody like Clarence Thomas, but it seems like any possible solution could backfire.

June 26, 2009 at 6:42 PM  
Blogger Lew Scannon said...

The irony is, if the strip searches were videotaped, the school would be busted for manufacturing child porn.

June 26, 2009 at 7:10 PM  
Blogger Demeur said...

I think that's the reason I don't fly anymore. I refuse to be treated like a criminal.

As for the SC the reason they're nominated for life is so that they'll focus on law and not on re-election campaigns.

June 26, 2009 at 10:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In his first term there was a case of a belligerent prisoner got lead to a room by the warden and the guards, the warden told the guards to "have fun" and they beat him up. It was Clarence Thomas who wrote the guards were right.

And out here in California, where Supreme Court judges come up for voter periodic review, the right wing hijacked it one year to get rid all the Liberal Judges (any that didn't agree with them) now the Judges are scared to speak their mind.

Erik

June 26, 2009 at 11:20 PM  
Anonymous S.W. anderson said...

What Thomas misses is that there is a point of diminishing returns and there must be limits when it comes to something like finding drugs or other "contraband" on a student.

This didn't have to be a strip search of a girl to go too far. Imagine if a vice principal had a teenage boy handcuffed to the chair the boy was sitting in. And then the VP began slapping the boy's face, then punching his stomach, to make him tell where he had pills hidden.

There must be a limit. The ends don't justify the means. Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, who had alleged jihadist captives tortured, are on the same wavelength as the school people who strip-searched the girl and Justice Thomas. They're primitive, two-dimensional thinkers who obviously believe the ends justify the means. They think what they're after is so important, because they say so, that it justifies anything they do.

That attitude and approach makes them less than civilized and a menace when they get into positions of power and authority.

June 27, 2009 at 12:19 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Lew: LOL, good point. And the irony is surely lost on Clarence Thomas and that dimwit school principal.

Demeur: I hate flying too for that same reason. I don't even like crossing into Canada because some of those asshole Canadian customs agents get such a thrill out of asking dozens of pointless questions and finally deigning to let you into their precious country.

Erik: I remember when Rose Bird got recalled from the California Supreme Court, entirely because she was against capital punishment. As much of an asshole as Thomas is, I don't think they can get rid of him just because of his twisted political views.

SW: I agree that Clarence Thomas sucks and is on the same wavelength as Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld. But I still don't know what procedure could be used to get him off the Court, without that same procedure being used and misused by the wingtards. There used to be "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards all across the country; and I'm glad the Right wasn't able to do that.

June 27, 2009 at 11:48 AM  
Anonymous Bee said...

Thomas is a POS.

I can tell you this: The first motherfucker who ever tries to strip-search my kid when she's old enough to go to school, I'll take a contract out on them.

Ok, maybe not a contract, but it will be the last kid they ever strip search. Schools, public and private, have zero business conducting this kind of shit within their walls.

June 27, 2009 at 3:49 PM  
Anonymous S.W. anderson said...

Tom, the only way a federal judge can be removed is through impeachment. An independent judiciary is crucial for our system and the only way to have one is to appoint judges for life.

Unlike every other aspect of American government, the courts must be assessed over long time periods, probably more in generations than in mere decades. That never suits Americans' temperament, with its strong preference for quick fixes and instant results.

Change from bad patches where people like Scalia and Thomas figure prominently in decisions happens slowly. But then, change from courts graced by, as you mentioned, Earl Warren and, I will add, William O'Douglas and others are slow to give way as well.

June 27, 2009 at 4:04 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Bee: Give 'em hell. That might ultimately be the solution -- individuals and parents saying "Enough!" if the courts won't do their job.

SW: That's true, the courts need to maintain their independence. If we were able to remove Clarence Thomas, the Right would have used that same method to get rid of Warren and Douglas. Good point about courts being assessed over generations rather than years or decades. And that doesn't sit well with the American "Gimme! Now!" mindset.

June 27, 2009 at 4:42 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home