NationStates

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:Even if there were, I don't see who in their right mind would think a school principal has the authority to decide when a strip search is and isn't appropriate. That's what the police are for.

Ehh, truth be told, in loco parentus goes pretty damned far.

The_pantless_hero wrote:

Neo Art wrote:Yes yes, I'm well aware of qualified immunity requirements . It just, to me, seems...borderline. What is "clearly illegal" to you, or I, or Justices Stevens and Ginsburg may not necessarily be so to a non lawyer.

When did that become a protection from the law?

It is a bit complicated. The actions remain illegal. But individual government officials can be protected from liability by qualified immunity. Qualified immunity comses from an attempt to balance the need to protect the rights of citizens by imposition of damages against the need to protect officials who are merely trying to do their job in the public interest. Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by a defendant official. It requires a subjective good faith and an objective presumptive knowledge of and respect for basic constitutional rights. Thus, government officials performing discretionary functions are shieled from personal liability for damages "insofar as thier conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Here the issue is whether the contours of the rights violated were sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he/she is doing violates that right. Hopefully, that isn't too confusing.

Neo and I apparently disagree on whether the the rights of the student here were clearly established enough to impose liability on the school officials.

(Much of the above language is paraphrased from Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).

Neo Art wrote:

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:Even if there were, I don't see who in their right mind would think a school principal has the authority to decide when a strip search is and isn't appropriate. That's what the police are for.

Ehh, truth be told, in loco parentus goes pretty damned far.

Not under the existing caselaw of T.L.O., as eight members of the Court agreed.

Neo Art wrote:

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:Even if there were, I don't see who in their right mind would think a school principal has the authority to decide when a strip search is and isn't appropriate. That's what the police are for.

Ehh, truth be told, in loco parentus goes pretty damned far.

I'm a loco parentis.

Neo Art wrote:Remember, school officials have pretty broad powers when it comes to their students.

Not legitimately.

The law is not necessarily right, and it is more important to follow what's right than it is to follow the law.

Bluth Corporation wrote:

Neo Art wrote:Remember, school officials have pretty broad powers when it comes to their students.

Not legitimately.

The law is not necessarily right, and it is more important to follow what's right than it is to follow the law.

Your first statement is rather bizarre and vague.

Your second has a kernel of truth but ignores the issue at hand -- whether the school officials in this case should be liable for damages for their actions. Sorry, but law has some relevance there.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:

Bluth Corporation wrote:

Neo Art wrote:Remember, school officials have pretty broad powers when it comes to their students.

Not legitimately.

The law is not necessarily right, and it is more important to follow what's right than it is to follow the law.

Your first statement is rather bizarre and vague.

Your second has a kernel of truth but ignores the issue at hand -- whether the school officials in this case should be liable for damages for their actions. Sorry, but law has some relevance there.

Pfft, according to Bluth, the school officials all just lost their humanity and should be enslaved.

Remember?

The Cat-Tribe wrote:

Bluth Corporation wrote:

Neo Art wrote:Remember, school officials have pretty broad powers when it comes to their students.

Not legitimately.

The law is not necessarily right, and it is more important to follow what's right than it is to follow the law.

Your first statement is rather bizarre and vague.

Your second has a kernel of truth but ignores the issue at hand -- whether the school officials in this case should be liable for damages for their actions. Sorry, but law has some relevance there.

No, they should be held liable for damages based not upon the law but upon more important principles of right and wrong.

As it happens, the law is right in this case. But they're not liable for damages because of "the law," they're liable for damages because they were wrong regardless of the law.

Bluth Corporation wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:

Bluth Corporation wrote:
Not legitimately.

The law is not necessarily right, and it is more important to follow what's right than it is to follow the law.

Your first statement is rather bizarre and vague.

Your second has a kernel of truth but ignores the issue at hand -- whether the school officials in this case should be liable for damages for their actions. Sorry, but law has some relevance there.

No, they should be held liable for damages based not upon the law but upon more important principles of right and wrong.

As it happens, the law is right in this case. But they're not liable for damages because of "the law," they're liable for damages because they were wrong regardless of the law.

How do tacos taste in your reality?

Bluth Corporation wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:

Bluth Corporation wrote:
Not legitimately.

The law is not necessarily right, and it is more important to follow what's right than it is to follow the law.

Your first statement is rather bizarre and vague.

Your second has a kernel of truth but ignores the issue at hand -- whether the school officials in this case should be liable for damages for their actions. Sorry, but law has some relevance there.

No, they should be held liable for damages based not upon the law but upon more important principles of right and wrong.

As it happens, the law is right in this case. But they're not liable for damages because of "the law," they're liable for damages because they were wrong regardless of the law.

In this bizarro world of yours, who decides who is liable of damages and based on what criteria and authority?

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:

Bluth Corporation wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Your first statement is rather bizarre and vague.

Your second has a kernel of truth but ignores the issue at hand -- whether the school officials in this case should be liable for damages for their actions. Sorry, but law has some relevance there.

No, they should be held liable for damages based not upon the law but upon more important principles of right and wrong.

As it happens, the law is right in this case. But they're not liable for damages because of "the law," they're liable for damages because they were wrong regardless of the law.

How do tacos taste in your reality?

Here's why that's a bad argument: Human institutions are not immutable, so just because something might be done a certain way now does not mean it always has to be that way, and that the way things are done cannot be changed.

Bluth Corporation wrote:Here's why that's a bad argument: Human institutions are not immutable, so just because something might be done a certain way now does not mean it always has to be that way, and that the way things are done cannot be changed.

Kids, can you say "non sequitur"? Good! I knew you could!

The Cat-Tribe wrote:

Neo Art wrote:

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:Even if there were, I don't see who in their right mind would think a school principal has the authority to decide when a strip search is and isn't appropriate. That's what the police are for.

Ehh, truth be told, in loco parentus goes pretty damned far.

Not under the existing caselaw of T.L.O., as eight members of the Court agreed.

Welll sure, but an after the fact finding is not proof positive I was not reasonable at the time. I am certainly not saying it wasn't illegal. I'm saying that at the time, given case law like TLO it may not have been the case that at the time a layperson would have reasonably known that.

Especialy since even the district court believed it was not illegal at all

The Cat-Tribe wrote:

Bluth Corporation wrote:Here's why that's a bad argument: Human institutions are not immutable, so just because something might be done a certain way now does not mean it always has to be that way, and that the way things are done cannot be changed.

Kids, can you say "non sequitur"? Good! I knew you could!

Not at all, as the premise underlying his comment is that I am somehow ignoring reality by arguing that things should be done in a manner differently from the way things currently are done.

Neo Art wrote:

Poliwanacraca wrote:

Neo Art wrote:Well no, neither do I, but the wording of the test is important. It's not just "is it reasonable" but "would a reasonable person have known it to be illegal?". And that...is a bit trickier. Sure, the first time I heard it I was outraged, as I'm sure you were. But...we're not reasonable people. We're highly trained specialists.

I just know that I will never, ever be able to look at the law like a layperson, so I am very...hesitant to apply what MY personal reaction is towards that "reasonable layperson" standard. I'm not one.

I dunno, speaking as a layperson, it seemed way over the line to me, but I may be too "reasonable" or something.

Way over the line yes, outragious yes, humiliating yes, immoral yes. But would you have been utterly so certain that it was ILLEGAL?'

Remember, school officials have pretty broad powers when it comes to their students.

Fair enough, I suppose. I would just be certain that it OUGHT to be illegal.

Bluth Corporation wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:

Bluth Corporation wrote:Here's why that's a bad argument: Human institutions are not immutable, so just because something might be done a certain way now does not mean it always has to be that way, and that the way things are done cannot be changed.

Kids, can you say "non sequitur"? Good! I knew you could!

Not at all, as the premise underlying his comment is that I am somehow ignoring reality by arguing that things should be done in a manner differently from the way things currently are done.

Except you didn't say they SHOULD be liable. You said they ARE. That's a statement of fact not opinion. And a wrong statement at that

Neo Art wrote:

Bluth Corporation wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Kids, can you say "non sequitur"? Good! I knew you could!

Not at all, as the premise underlying his comment is that I am somehow ignoring reality by arguing that things should be done in a manner differently from the way things currently are done.

Except you didn't say they SHOULD be liable. You said they ARE. That's a statement of fact not opinion. And a wrong statement at that

No, the school most certainly IS liable, as a matter of objective moral fact; what the law says is irrelevant.

Bluth Corporation wrote:
No, the school most certainly IS liable, as a matter of objective moral fact; what the law says is irrelevant.

Utter and complete nonsense. liability is a matter of law, nothing more.

Neo Art wrote:

Bluth Corporation wrote:
No, the school most certainly IS liable, as a matter of objective moral fact; what the law says is irrelevant.

Utter and complete nonsense. liability is a matter of law, nothing more.

No, it's not.

How does Clarence Thomas get away with this? Has he no shame?

Neo Art wrote:Except you didn't say they SHOULD be liable. You said they ARE. That's a statement of fact not opinion. And a wrong statement at that

You're being trolled.

Sdaeriji wrote:

Neo Art wrote:Except you didn't say they SHOULD be liable. You said they ARE. That's a statement of fact not opinion. And a wrong statement at that

You're being trolled.

Curse you Ayn Rand! Curse your rotting Russian corpse!

Bluth Corporation wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:

Bluth Corporation wrote:Here's why that's a bad argument: Human institutions are not immutable, so just because something might be done a certain way now does not mean it always has to be that way, and that the way things are done cannot be changed.

Kids, can you say "non sequitur"? Good! I knew you could!

Not at all, as the premise underlying his comment is that I am somehow ignoring reality by arguing that things should be done in a manner differently from the way things currently are done.

On the contrary, I am arguing against your premise that the law is irrelevant as that argument isn't going to help you in court.

Here's another question however; Who decides what is right and what is wrong?

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:[
Here's another question however; Who decides what is right and what is wrong?

Ayn Rand, duh. Don't you know ANYTHING?

Neo Art wrote:

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:[
Here's another question however; Who decides what is right and what is wrong?

Ayn Rand, duh. Don't you know ANYTHING?

So our overlord is a rotting Russian corpse?