As long as the Righteous Five of the Supreme Court have decided requiring an individual to take off his clothes and be peered at by jail personnel is fine and dandy, we should feel free to let our minds wander back to the Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991. At that time the esteemed Justice, then only a nominee, was accused of renting pornographic films from the local video store. I do not know whether Justice Thomas was or is a viewer of so-called pornography. But if he were, would this not prejudice his views on the subject of jail employees staring at the naked bodies of men and women, even those individuals convicted of no crime and those accused of even minor offenses? (Here I might say that if the reader can detect no shred of humor, the reader may wish to check the full functioning of his funny bone. He may also want to remember the old saying that many a truth is said in jest.)
The fact that such strip "searches" are banned by human rights treaties should have given the Righteous Five a strong clue that such searches are beyond the tolerance of American jurisprudence. As a person raised in the church and the holder of a degree from a seminary, I can say that such a blanket policy is against long-standing Christian practice.
This is a very dark Court majority in terms of their overall outlook on life. What kind of a country have we become if the highest Court in the land okays forced nude searches of anyone and everyone a jurisdiction puts in jail? It is time to seriously study possible legal remedies such as 20-year limits on Supreme Court terms. This court is doing just what conservatives used to complain about so vehemently -- legislating from the bench. Evidently, it is not so much a matter of legislating from the bench but of whose laws get gored or advanced.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting. All comments are moderated. Your comment will be reviewed as quickly as possible. Off-topic or inappropriate will not be considered. Timely and appropriate messages are most welcome.