Friday, June 26, 2009

Justice Pubic Hair Dissents

Why am I not surprised that Clarence Thomas sees nothing wrong with stripping a 13 year-old girl down to her nubile flesh to search for Ibuprofen?

While there are no good, juicy quotes in Thomas' 22-page dissent (yeah, I read that piece of shit) it is easy to see that Thomas would not only approve of school adults searching the underwear of young girls he would, by the content and logic of his arguments, also approve of full cavity searches of students as well.

Judging from the length of Thomas' dissent, which is almost twice as long as the opinion it is responding to, I feel certain that he spent many nights contemplating this case, picturing the various searches he would allow, seeing in his mind's eye all these budding young women standing in shy nudity for inspection, perhaps even imagining these girls bending over for finger searches of their vaginas. I am certain that Thomas found repeated satisfaction and relief in considering this case.

I'm curious. Did he ask to see pictures?

No comments: