Last week, the five Republican partisans who control the U.S. Supreme Court were all about protecting American “liberties” against the threat of compulsory broccoli purchases. This week, they are defending the rights of prison guards to strip search a nun arrested in an anti-war protest or a black guy who got nabbed by mistake for not paying a fine that he had actually paid.

But the Court’s strip-search ruling on Monday was more about the future than the past. One could almost see the GOP Five rubbing their hands together at the prospect of mass strip searches of young men and women arrested for challenging corporate greed in Occupy protests. Perhaps the justices would like to take a page from Rush Limbaugh’s playbook and suggest the videos be posted online so they could watch.

“Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the Republican majority.

Of course, the justices don’t expect that they and their powerful friends would ever be subjected to such humiliation. That’s more for the lesser beings – or those with lesser money – especially those who find themselves disproportionately tossed into America’s massive prison system: the poor, the minorities and the protesters.

The GOP Five’s 5-4 ruling was so extreme that it even caused the usually solicitous New York Times to note that “the procedures endorsed by the majority are forbidden by statute in at least 10 states and are at odds with the policies of federal authorities. According to a … brief filed by the American Bar Association, international human rights treaties also bar the procedures.”

What the GOP Five’s ruling means for average Americans is that they can have their private parts and body cavities inspected by prison guards after arrests for even the most non-violent of charges, such as “violating a leash law, driving without a license and failing to pay child support,” the Times reported.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer noted in his dissenting opinion that people have been subjected to “the humiliation of a visual strip-search” after getting arrested for a noisy muffler, not using a turn signal and not having a proper bell on a bicycle. Breyer also noted that a nun was strip-searched after getting arrested for trespassing in an anti-war protest.

But the GOP Five would have none of that human rights stuff, continuing with their disconnected logic to reach rulings that fit their ideological bent. For instance, Justice Kennedy noted that “one of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93.”

What the prejudicial 9/11 reference had to do with strip-searching someone whose dog runs off leash or whose bicycle bell doesn’t work might not be readily apparent to anyone who doesn’t spend the day watching Fox News – unless Kennedy thinks that strip-searching everyone who gets a speeding ticket might prevent another 9/11.

The Naked Plaintiff

Albert W. Florence, the African-American plaintiff who lost in the Supreme Court’s ruling, was subjected to two strip searches in 2005 after his wife, April, was pulled over for speeding. Though Florence was in the passenger seat, he was arrested when a police records search discovered an outstanding warrant against him for an unpaid fine (which had actually been paid).

Before the clerical error was corrected, Florence was detained for a week, held in two jails which each required a strip search. He was forced to stand naked in front of a guard who made him lift his penis and testicles so they could be examined. Then, Florence said, he was ordered to turn around, squat cough and spread his cheeks to expose his anus.

The GOP Five claimed the extensive use of strip searches was necessary to provide security in the nation’s massive prison complex, which holds millions of detainees. But strip searches also would give authorities a powerful psychological weapon to use against protesters, like those who have participated in Occupy Wall Street and related demonstrations around the country.

The GOP Five’s latest ruling also undercuts their posturing last week during hearings on the Affordable Care Act when they presented themselves as principled defenders of American “liberties” by signaling a readiness to strike down the individual health insurance mandate at the center of a law aimed at providing near universal health-care coverage for Americans.

During those oral arguments, Republican justices demanded that U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. define a “limiting principle” to the Constitution’s Commerce Clause (though the Framers included none when they wrote the document in 1787). Justice Antonin Scalia wondered if Congress also could mandate that Americans buy broccoli; Justice Samuel Alito worried about burial insurance.

Although the individual mandate originated as a conservative idea from the right-wing Heritage Foundation and was applied against health-care “free riders” by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, it suddenly became a tyrannical infringement on American “liberties” when embraced by Democratic President Barack Obama.

At one point in last week’s oral arguments, Justice Scalia let his right-wing ideology peak out from under his black robes when he dressed down Verrilli for noting that the United States has accepted the principle of providing emergency medical treatment for a person who is injured or stricken with a sudden illness.

“We’ve obligated ourselves so that people get health care,” Verrilli said in the context of explaining that those costs then get passed on as higher premiums charged to Americans who have health insurance. Scalia answer to the dilemma was, “well, don’t obligate yourself to that,” in other words just let the person suffer or die.

Again, it might be noted that Scalia and his well-to-do friends would not be the ones dumped on sidewalks outside hospitals, but rather the lesser people, i.e. those with lesser money.

Yet, after a week of posing as brave libertarians protecting Americans from President Obama’s health-care reform, the GOP Five quickly reverted to form as defenders of abusive state power, with their minds likely filled with visions of naked young anti-Wall Street protesters – male and female – forced to bend over and expose their genitals.
_______


http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/42390/five-gop-justices-like-stripping-americans

initially, offensive

until I re read

"Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the Republican majority. "



I understand that precaution due to the GENERAL population being full of so many types of offenders

Now, that a non violent PROTESTOR, would be admitted into such a diverse prison population of offenders,,,,,

scars me much more than a strip search......

I didn't read the whole thing so I don't know if it covered this but once your found guilty and sentenced you ARE subject to strip searches.

I dont think thats true everywhere, I think its a state law thing that not all states follow. IT also depends, I think, upon whether we are speaking about JAILS or prisons.

Where I llved, you didnt get strip searched, for instance,,,if you were being held for court (Which is usually what they do for more minor offenses)and were placed in holding cells, but not in 'general population'

I was talking about prison and I'm pretty sure that's customary, particularly if you refuse to vacate your cell and they extract you.

read it.

"What the GOP Five’s ruling means for average Americans is that they can have their private parts and body cavities inspected by prison guards after arrests for even the most non-violent of charges, such as “violating a leash law, driving without a license and failing to pay child support,” the Times reported. "

This applies to people who have just been brought in (I guess for arrest, but I'm not positive they even have to have been arrested), NOT only to people who have been convicted. I find it disturbing. I understand what they're worried about -- that a person who is brought in for any reason may be trying to smuggle something in to a current prisoner -- but this just seems to be going too far.

Yep five republican nominated justices have taken away more of our human dignity.

yeah,to hell with the safety of the Arresting Personnel!
To heck with the safety of the Booking personnel!
Just as long as the "Dignity" of the Perp is upheld!

Not really, police have no idea who you are, what your carrying or what you're capable of. It is perfectly acceptable to do strip searches in jails and prisons, where it is disturbing is doing this to an elderly woman or young kid at an airport.

The land of the free and the home of the brave......... in my best screeching voice..........

guess you better make sure you don't get arrested then!

I know its just like liveing in a brutal eastern european police state in the Stalin era.

How did we let this happen?

Oh yea it was 911 that started it all. hmmmmmmmmm

Bull!
I suggest you read up,and talk to people who went through the Stalinist Era!
Always amuses me when Folks rant about the Communist Era in Europe and elsewhere,and liken their situation to it!

2012 marks the 155th anniversary of the Dred Scott vs Sanford decision by the Supreme Court..

Let's take a look at the Justices who voted for slavery..


Chief Justice Taney... Democrat

Justice Wayne.. Democrat

Justice Catron.. Democrat

Justice Daniel.. Democrat

Justice Nelson.. Democrat

Justice Greer.. Democrat

Justice Campbell.. Democrat

And now the two Justices that voted against slavery

Justice McClean.. Republican

Justice Curtis.. Whig


Slavery... Strip searching.. Hmmmmm...

Such a proud judicial legacy those democrats have..

OMG you have to be kidding a hundred and fifty years ago ?

Its just to absurd to waste time on I think Ill go turn my vegatable garden over and get ready for spring planting.

Perhaps invest in Latex-Glove Manufacturing Shares!

Yet it's ok for you to compare it to the Stalin era. What was that almost 100 years ago?

That is the best you have?

haha.. you liberals fold so easily..

can't revisionist history your way out of this one..

And after your strip search for stealing that pack of gum it's off to the gulags for you!!!!