5/5/2005

10 Responses to “Funny Supreme Court Quotes”

1. OK, somebody has to ask: what’s the Lemon test?

   UML Guy (354125) — 5/5/2005 @ 9:03 pm

   
   

2. I put an extra sentence in (the one in brackets) to make it a bit clearer.

   Patterico (756436) — 5/5/2005 @ 9:13 pm

   
   

3. Years ago, I heard an exchange from oral arguments reported in NPR. The case involved the question of whether requiring high-school students to submit to urine-based drug tests was a violation of their privacy because it was mandatory for them to pee in front of an observer.

   One of the justices asked a visibly nervous attorney if urination is, in fact, a private act. The attorney replied something along the lines of, “Well, I feel like I’m about to urinate RIGHT NOW, so I’ll say no.”

   I wish I had a verbatim transcript, but I wouldn’t even know where to begin looking for one.

   Jeff Harrell (a5b150) — 5/5/2005 @ 9:30 pm

   
   

4. The Lemon test takes its name from the case Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote the following to deteremine if a law is establishing religion,

   First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.”

   I can’t stand the liberal drivel on NPR, but the referred story is from the March 28, 1995 broadcast of All Things Considered about Vergonia School District v. Acton. A search on NPR’s website turned up the transcript.

   SUPREME COURT HEARS SCHOOL DRUG TESTING ARGUMENTS

   March 28, 1995

   ROBERT SIEGEL, Host: The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today in a case with ramifications for almost every parent and child in America. The case tests whether public schools may conduct random drug testing on student athletes. Today’s oral arguments took some unusual turns before the high court as NPR’s legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg reports.

   NINA TOTENBERG, Reporter: Bernonia, Oregon, is a small logging community with a total school population of about 700, spread among four schools. In the late 1980’s, school officials became alarmed by a dramatic increase in disciplinary problems, particularly among student athletes. School officials believed that the cause of the problem was an increase in drug and alcohol use. Randy Altman [sp] is principal of the Washington School.

   RANDY ALTMAN, School Principal: Our students were being more blatant in their admission, openly admitting that they used drugs, writing about it in the classes. We had teachers saying that students, they had noticed a more disruptive behavior. Suspensions were up over 50 percent. I had parents calling in and saying you guys have a drug problem down there.

   NINA TOTENBERG: At the suggestion of principal Altman and others, the school board adopted a mandatory drug-testing program for all student athletes above the sixth grade. Students were tested often and randomly for marijuana, cocaine and amphetamines, but not for alcohol.

   The program ran into trouble when 12-year-old James Aktin [sp], a model student, signed up for football and brought home a drug testing form for his parents to sign. Here’s his mother, Judy Aktin.

   JUDY AKTIN, Student’s Mother: Wayne and I looked at it and we knew where we stood on this issue and we knew we wouldn’t be signing it. And we discussed with James over the weekend why we wouldn’t be signing it and I think he understood, as well as a 12-year-old can understand the subtleties of the Fourth Amendment.

   NINA TOTENBERG: Unable to play football, James felt conflicted.

   JAMES AKTIN, Student: At the time, I felt left out. But I feel that it was worth it.

   NINA TOTENBERG: The Aktins challenged the drug testing program in court, claiming that it violated James’ Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. A federal appeals court agreed that the constitution requires some individualized suspicion before requiring a school drug test. The school board appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and the justices heard the arguments in the case today.

   Representing the school board, lawyer Timothy Volpert [sp] argued that the existence of disciplinary problems and the need to keep sports safe, are adequate justifications for random drug testing.

   Justice Souter, `Was there a lot of drug use at the school or was there a lot of bragging about it? My impression is that the evidence was a lot of talk, not much more.’ Answer, `There were arrests of students. Drug paraphernalia was found on campus. There were cases of marijuana smoke coming from athletes’ rooms.’ Justice Souter, sharply, `There was one instance, wasn’t there? You spoke in the plural. I’m troubled by your generalizations.’

   Justice O’Connor, `Did the school try drug testing based on reasonable suspicion?’ Answer, `No.’ Question, `Why not?’ Answer, `I can only surmise that the school board thought it would be too difficult for teachers to make that judgment. And also, there would have been no deterrent effect.’

   Justice Stevens, `You mean the problem was so serious and you had no individualized suspicions? That seems a contradiction. How do you know the ring leaders were athletes if you didn’t have any individualized suspicions?’ Answer, `You’d have to judge behavior as so bizarre that it’s reasonable to test for drugs.’

   Justice O’Connor, sternly, `But Mr. Volpert, isn’t that what the Fourth Amendment is designed to require?’ She added, `During the four years you tested, how many positive tests did you have?’ Answer, `Two or three.’

   Justice Ginsberg, `Why didn’t you test for alcohol?’

   Justice Scalia, `Maybe they felt alcohol had been around a long time and wasn’t as damaging.’ Lawyer Volpert quickly agreed. He agreed also with a suggestion from Chief Justice Renquist that a school district, in order to justify drug testing, need only cite the national problem of drugs in schools.

   Justice Souter, `So then, shouldn’t the whole school population be tested, not just athletes?’ Answer, `Yes. We’ve made a sufficient case for that.’

   Justice Ginsberg, `Isn’t there a significant difference between testing people who are required to go to school and testing athletes who participate in athletics voluntarily?’

   But if lawyer Volpert got a going over from the justices, lawyer Tom Crist [sp] representing the Aktin family got mauled. If maintaining order is the goal in the Bernonia schools, Crist told the justices, then disorderly behavior should be punished instead of invading the privacy of every student.

   Justice Ginsberg, `Could every unruly student be tested for drugs?’ Answer, `Perhaps.’ Ginsberg, `Isn’t that fraught with the risk that the teacher will pick on the child he doesn’t like?’ Answer, `But the random tests subjects everyone to this intrusive and degrading test.’

   Justice Scalia, `I would find it much more shameful to be picked out than subject to some random test.’

   Justice Kennedy, `Won’t we be turning teachers into policemen if they have to make judgments on whom to test?’

   Justice O’Connor, `Suppose the school required these tests for health reasons?’ Answer, `My client took a physical exam, but it was private.’

   Chief Justice Renquist, `How much privacy is there in a locker room with urinals lined up in a row and guys walking around naked?’

   Justice Stevens, `What if the school required the urine test as part of the physical exam for every student? Would that be OK?’ Answer, `No it wouldn’t.’

   Justice Breyer pressed lawyer Crist to pinpoint what is so intrusive about a drug test. `Medical exams all involve urinalysis,’ said the justice. `People urinate in men’s rooms all over the country. It really isn’t a terribly private thing, is it?’ Answer, `It’s not the mere act. We all urinate. That has to be conceded,’ said lawyer Crist. And then in rueful despair he added, `In fact, I might do it here.’ The courtroom erupted in laughter.

   A decision in the drug testing case is expected by summer. I’m Nina Totenberg in Washington.

   Pettifogger (be5e8e) — 5/6/2005 @ 1:22 am

   
   

5. I liked in lawrence when scalia started a sentnce with along the lines of “I have no problem with homosexuals achieving their rights via electoral change” [Its a paraphrase].

   But he did start out with “I have no problem with homosexuals . . .” and I had to do a double take over that classic hallmark of bigotry, usually followed some sort of a “but . . . ”

   someone has a sense of humor.

   actus (0f2616) — 5/6/2005 @ 5:32 am

   
   

6. I liked in lawrence when scalia started a sentnce with along the lines of “I have no problem with homosexuals achieving their rights via electoral change” [Its a paraphrase].

   But he did start out with “I have no problem with homosexuals . . .” and I had to do a double take over that classic hallmark of bigotry, usually followed some sort of a “but . . . ”

   someone has a sense of humor.

   I remember that well. Idiot editors chopped the quote to “I have no problem with homosexuals” — and then idiot editorial writers across the country criticized Scalia for bigotry on that basis, without giving readers the full quote. I discussed that here.

   Apparently it’s too much to ask of our vaunted media that they actually read the opinions they criticize. If they did, Scalia (whose opinions are consistently the best-written and best-reasoned in any given case) would get a lot less flak — at least from the intellectually honest among the media.

   Patterico (756436) — 5/6/2005 @ 6:33 am

   
   

7. at least from the intellectually honest among the media

   Dave has been sick lately…

   Christopher Cross (237f28) — 5/6/2005 @ 10:37 am

   
   

8. I realize this is somewhat of a tangent, but since you went down the drug testing rabbit trail … Having participated in random drug testing in the military since the early ’70s (including even general officers), and in the airlines for the last 10 years, I’m amazed that anyone finds this particularly objectionable or a privacy issue.

   Every drug test I have ever taken was done in private with certain safeguards in place so it couldn’t be faked. It’s not as if someone actually watches while you urinate in a bottle. In my opinion, the whole privacy argument is a smoke screen in an attempt to introduce a constitutional issue where there is arguably none.

   But then we’re talking about funny Supreme Court quotes, aren’t we. Was it Justice Stevens who opined recently in a death penalty case, basically eliminating the death penalty for anyone under 18 regardless of the details of the crime, that he formed his judgements based at least in part on some international standard? Funny only sort of, but not in a humorous context.

   Harry Arthur (40c0a6) — 5/6/2005 @ 12:15 pm

   
   

9. The most ridiculous court ruling?

   Judge Learned Hand’s famous ALCOA decision:

   It was not inevitable that it [Alcoa] should always anticipate increases in the demand for ingot and be prepared to supply them. Nothing compelled it to keep doubling and redoubling its capacity before others entered the field. It insists that it never excluded competitors; but we can think of no more effective exclusion than progressively to embrace each new opportunity as it opened, and to face every newcomer with new capacity already geared into a great organization, having the advantage of experience, trade connections and the elite of personnel.

   Tom (29aa51) — 5/6/2005 @ 7:19 pm

   
   

10. But he was on the Circuit Court, alas.

    Tom (29aa51) — 5/6/2005 @ 7:19 pm