4 ms·

His stance is less confusing if you actually read it in context, instead of carless (being very charitable) summation that completely misses his point. Ignoran

by EricE 5y ago

His stance is less confusing if you actually read it in context, instead of carless (being very charitable) summation that completely misses his point. Ignorance or malice? Either is terrible. Here's the relevant part from the introduction of his dissent. Note he doesn't have issue with the outcome, but the extremely sloppy and haphazard way in which the decision was outlined. I quote: "The Court overrides that decision—without even mentioning the 150 years of history supporting the coach. Using broad brushstrokes, the majority outlines the scope of school authority. When students are on campus, the majority says, schools have authority in loco parentis—that is, as substitutes of parents—to discipline speech and conduct. Off campus, the authority of schools is somewhat less. At that level of generality, I agree. But the majority omits important detail. What authority does a school have when it operates in loco parentis? How much less authority do schools have over off-campus speech and conduct? And how does a court decide if speech is on or off campus? Disregarding these important issues, the majority simply posits three vague considerations and reaches an outcome. A more searching review reveals that schools historically could discipline students in circumstances like those presented here. Because the majority does not attempt to explain why we should not apply this historical rule and does not attempt to tether its approach to anything stable, I respectfully dissent. " https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf Page 34 If you actually read his dissent, instead of a hack summary, you would see he thinks they didn't go far enough in constraining the schools. Quite the opposite of what is implied by CNN.

lp0_on_fire 5y ago
Unsurprising. CNN decided long ago that Thomas is "the other" and they'll never be charitable when it comes to people on that side of the political aisle. Before I get the deluge of "WHATABOUT fox news" comments. Yes, Fox news is horrible and they are never charitable either.
harshreality 5y ago
I'm just an amateur occasional Supreme Court-watcher, but just reading his dissent I wouldn't go so far as to say he thinks schools need to be more constrained than the majority does. He might or he might not. Or maybe I missed something you picked up on. What is clear to me is that he thinks there are crucial unresolved issues that the majority punted on. The process of the court's opinion-writing sometimes involves several justices circulating draft opinions and trying to recruit others to sign on. Thomas might have written such a draft opinion with very careful reasoning, perhaps even concurring in the majority's judgment, but nobody else was willing to sign on to some of his specific reasoning that he thought was crucial, so he took his toys and went home.
cogman10 5y ago
I believe you've misread his dissent. Had he agreed with the outcome but not the opinion, he'd write a concurrence (like Alito did). Multiple times in Thomas's dissent he says the couch was right to have punished from prior standards. His dissent can be boiled down to "The court is not considering prior precedence and should have sided with the couch". > While the majority entirely ignores the relevant history,I would begin the assessment of the scope of free-speech rights incorporated against the States by looking to “what‘ordinary citizens’ at the time of [the Fourteenth Amend-ment’s] ratification would have understood” the right to en-compass. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 813 (2010) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judg-ment). Cases and treatises from that era reveal that public schools retained substantial authority to discipline stu-dents. As I have previously explained, that authority was near plenary while students were at school. See Morse v. Frederick, 551 U. S. 393, 419 (2007) (concurring opinion).Authority also extended to when students were traveling toor from school. See, e.g., Lander v. Seaver, 32 Vt. 114, 120 (1859). And, although schools had less authority after a student returned home, it was well settled that they still could discipline students for off-campus speech or conduct that had a proximate tendency to harm the school environ-ment.

by EricE 5y ago

lp0_on_fire 5y ago

Unsurprising. CNN decided long ago that Thomas is "the other" and they'll never be charitable when it comes to people on that side of the political aisle. Before I get the deluge of "WHATABOUT fox news" comments. Yes, Fox news is horrible and they are never charitable either.

harshreality 5y ago

I'm just an amateur occasional Supreme Court-watcher, but just reading his dissent I wouldn't go so far as to say he thinks schools need to be more constrained than the majority does. He might or he might not. Or maybe I missed something you picked up on. What is clear to me is that he thinks there are crucial unresolved issues that the majority punted on. The process of the court's opinion-writing sometimes involves several justices circulating draft opinions and trying to recruit others to sign on. Thomas might have written such a draft opinion with very careful reasoning, perhaps even concurring in the majority's judgment, but nobody else was willing to sign on to some of his specific reasoning that he thought was crucial, so he took his toys and went home.

cogman10 5y ago

I believe you've misread his dissent. Had he agreed with the outcome but not the opinion, he'd write a concurrence (like Alito did). Multiple times in Thomas's dissent he says the couch was right to have punished from prior standards. His dissent can be boiled down to "The court is not considering prior precedence and should have sided with the couch". > While the majority entirely ignores the relevant history,I would begin the assessment of the scope of free-speech rights incorporated against the States by looking to “what‘ordinary citizens’ at the time of [the Fourteenth Amend-ment’s] ratification would have understood” the right to en-compass. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 813 (2010) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judg-ment). Cases and treatises from that era reveal that public schools retained substantial authority to discipline stu-dents. As I have previously explained, that authority was near plenary while students were at school. See Morse v. Frederick, 551 U. S. 393, 419 (2007) (concurring opinion).Authority also extended to when students were traveling toor from school. See, e.g., Lander v. Seaver, 32 Vt. 114, 120 (1859). And, although schools had less authority after a student returned home, it was well settled that they still could discipline students for off-campus speech or conduct that had a proximate tendency to harm the school environ-ment.