“Students, Thomas says, endanger themselves.

July 3, 2002 5:00 PM

“Students, Thomas says, endanger themselves. And that is enough for the court to approve the program. It's enough to force every single American to also submit to suspicionless drug-testing, but Thomas neglects to mention this." The Justices are mostly old and frail and wield massive power. They should be tested for their "protection" and so the American public can be sure they are "physically fit, and have unimpeachable integrity and judgment."
posted by raaka (13 comments total)

One step closer to the total and complete alienation of US citizens by their own government.
posted by SpecialK at 5:21 PM on July 3, 2002

Poncho? Poncho, is that you?
posted by dash_slot- at 5:32 PM on July 3, 2002

Thin end of the wedge. First, they justified testing athletes based on their unique status within the school. Now, any student who wants to participate in extra-curricular stuff. Next...any student. This has all been discussed here before I am sure. I will nonetheless insert the standard rant:

I remember when my high school friends and I got busted for the illegal smile. We had to go to a big multi-family meeting on Sunday and get roasted by all the parents. Then, they got the high school band director to talk to us. He actually said, we both know that smoking A joint won't hurt us. But you have to understand that it would still be stupid and wrong to do so right now (we were in his office at school) because of the law, and society's attitudes, and our obligations to others in the community. So, there is a time and place, and school functions ain't it. He also talked about people he knew from music school who went wrong with drugs or flipped their car or whatever.

Now that high school band and the community of friends we formed in it was just about all some of us had. The old approach, the Dutch Uncle talk like we got with threat of worse if we fucked up again, is out: we would have all been expelled from the band under the new regime. Zero tolerance. Would that really have been the best thing for us? I don't think so.
posted by crunchburger at 6:33 PM on July 3, 2002

in loco parentis :)

hey, looking around i just noticed not only is judge colleen kollar-kotelly set to rule on the microsoft case, but also on the legality of detaining "enemy combatants" indefinitely in cuba!
posted by kliuless at 6:33 PM on July 3, 2002

Clarence Thomas is a fuckwit, as are the justices who signed on to that decision.

Ginsburg's dissent can be distilled to one eloquent sentence: "Many children, like many adults, engage in dangerous activities on their own time; that the children are enrolled in school scarcely allows government to monitor all such activities."
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:00 PM on July 3, 2002

Be sure, this is all part of a deliberate move toward training a passive, government-controlled citizenry. "Get their minds when they're young, and you got 'em for life."

Once there's been a generation of kids brought up expecting drug tests, privacy infringement, police action, etc, America will be ohsomuch easier to control.

No MP3 piracy. No WTO protests. No demands for representation. No expectations of government control of public interests: no OSHA, no unions, no public lands.

It'll be such a wonderful world.

Suck it up, kiddies.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:08 PM on July 3, 2002

The subject was bandied about a bit earlier, and my opinion remains much the same: one of searing scorn.
posted by majick at 8:15 PM on July 3, 2002

I hope someday I'm in the same room as Thomas so I can unzip my fly and piss all over his loafers.

Fascist bastards.

I hope to see some open revolt from kids, but I seriously doubt it.
posted by mark13 at 8:19 PM on July 3, 2002

When I played football in school, they required me to take a physical, but the school didn't pick up the check for that. My parents had to pay. Who's to say that they won't just pass the cost of the piss test along to the students?
posted by willnot at 9:34 PM on July 3, 2002

Why don't we then also have drug testing for all judges at inconvenient and embarassing times, and under the supervision of some potential perv as well? After all, if it's going to be a good test, someone has to see you do it. Let's see how judges feel about these measures then.

While we're at it, we might as well throw in IQ testing, which is something the judiciary is in most imminent need of, by all accounts.
posted by clevershark at 9:48 PM on July 3, 2002

Hmm.
<troll>What was that about all your freedoms in America, again?</troll>
posted by salmacis at 1:03 AM on July 4, 2002

Are taxpayers going to willingly drop $50,000+ for the anti-war agenda and propaganda fest? Probably not.

Of course not, and that's why this will be used specifically to harass carefully screen troublesome potentially at-risk students who can think for themselves demonstrate behavioural problems.
posted by Mars Saxman at 12:32 PM on July 4, 2002

I like this testing judges idea. Let's test Thomas for:

1) intelligence
2) the pr0n addiction gene
3) Uncle Tom-ism

Anyone ever see the movie 'Separate but Equal?' Now that was a REAL Supreme Court with REAL leadership. Of course the Federalist Society of right wing extremists would NEVER vet men with capabilities of independent thought who might not toe the ideological line. And they, not the ABA, now vet ALL federal judgeships. I just hope all the vacancies created and kept open by Orrin Hatch for years are not filled with judges similar to Thomas, Scalia and their infamous leader Rehnquist.
posted by nofundy at 5:44 AM on July 5, 2002