Comments on: Good http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/06/26/good-43/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:10:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: dustydog http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/06/26/good-43/comment-page-1/#comment-223990 dustydog Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:00:49 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=26696#comment-223990 If the US military had made a terror suspect strip and jump, to search for contraband, it would be front page news for weeks. Why is protecting Americans less important than ensuring kids don't have access to safe, effective medicines for a few hours per day? If the US military had made a terror suspect strip and jump, to search for contraband, it would be front page news for weeks. Why is protecting Americans less important than ensuring kids don’t have access to safe, effective medicines for a few hours per day?

]]> By: Yu-Ain Gonnano http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/06/26/good-43/comment-page-1/#comment-223928 Yu-Ain Gonnano Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:22:22 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=26696#comment-223928 True, but the job of the court isn't to determine which laws are smart. True, but the job of the court isn’t to determine which laws are smart.

]]> By: Robert http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/06/26/good-43/comment-page-1/#comment-223926 Robert Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:42:38 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=26696#comment-223926 It's possible to get so smart that you don't have any sense. It’s possible to get so smart that you don’t have any sense.

]]> By: Yu-Ain Gonnano http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/06/26/good-43/comment-page-1/#comment-223923 Yu-Ain Gonnano Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:58:06 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=26696#comment-223923 His opinion (in as much as I've skimmed so far) seems to suggest that line of reasoning. 'In loco parentis' is currently considered constitutional (rightly or wrongly). The plaintiffs were not challenging that law and so the court must assume that that law is in fact proper. His opinion (in as much as I’ve skimmed so far) seems to suggest that line of reasoning. ‘In loco parentis’ is currently considered constitutional (rightly or wrongly). The plaintiffs were not challenging that law and so the court must assume that that law is in fact proper.

]]> By: Will R http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/06/26/good-43/comment-page-1/#comment-223918 Will R Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:59:19 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=26696#comment-223918 I don't think that's what he meant, but let's assume it is. I'd still find that troubling, because it would mean that other parents get to vote on how your child is raised 7 hours of the day. In loco parentis is a horrible doctrine, and even moreso when it's coupled with compulsory attendance laws. Also, where in the constitution does it exclude people under the age of 18 from the rights guaranteed? I don’t think that’s what he meant, but let’s assume it is. I’d still find that troubling, because it would mean that other parents get to vote on how your child is raised 7 hours of the day. In loco parentis is a horrible doctrine, and even moreso when it’s coupled with compulsory attendance laws. Also, where in the constitution does it exclude people under the age of 18 from the rights guaranteed?

]]> By: mariner http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/06/26/good-43/comment-page-1/#comment-223910 mariner Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:36:45 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=26696#comment-223910 I don't agree re: Thomas' dissent. He didn't say it was OK; he said it shouldn't be the Supreme Court to decide. Parents should decide, acting through the school boards. I don’t agree re: Thomas’ dissent.

He didn’t say it was OK; he said it shouldn’t be the Supreme Court to decide. Parents should decide, acting through the school boards.

]]>