Comments on: Dog Trainer: Abortion Trumps Speech

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 00:01:53 +0000

I know. That’s why I added the update stating “maybe this wasn’t such a good example,” and linking to the same page.

By: Uncle Bill

Uncle Bill — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 23:40:10 +0000

Millennium Information Services denies the story as reported.

By: jed

jed — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:37:13 +0000

Well, if any keywords (respondent, etc.) come to mind, maybe you could toss ‘em my direction. I’m not seeing anything specific to that at Findlaw. I’m sure it’ll come up again some time.

Later, dude.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:22:20 +0000

Jed, I believe that is correct, though I’m not 100% sure. IIRC, the US Supreme Court heard a case on that issue last year; unfortunately, I don’t remember the name of the case or the ultimate holding.

By: NeoWarmonger

NeoWarmonger — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:39:44 +0000

…and a partridge in a pear tree
Xrlq explains the state action doctrine, for the constitutionally illiterate.

By: Zev Sero

Zev Sero — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:41:23 +0000

Could someone please explain how I do a trackback to this post?

By: jed

jed — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:58:11 +0000

Hmmm. So 4th Amendment protections apply only when a search/siezure is for the purposes of criminal prosecution?

And now my mind is wandering off into CFS territory.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 04:02:45 +0000

Not necessarily more direct; it’s more a question of whether or not the same test would be considered unconstitutional if done by the state. AFAIK, the state can impose pre-employment drug screening requirements on its own would-be employees, so I would think it could also require its contractors to do so. Probably a different result if the state was using the tests to prosecute the applicants criminally.

By: jed

jed — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 03:02:26 +0000

Here’s another tangent, from here are some exceptions to the state action doctrine. One exception applies where the acts of a private individual can reasonably be imputed to the state.

Any chance this could extend to pre-employment drug screening? Probably too much of a stretch, but perhaps not? When gov. procurement contracts require vendors to do them, is that sufficient for imputation? Or does it have to be more direct?

By: Patterico's Pontifications

Patterico's Pontifications — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 02:45:14 +0000

Don’t Get Cocky, NYT Editors! Los Angeles Times Editors Also Know How to Regurgitate Talking Points from the Left!
Newspaper editorial writers could learn something from bloggers. Blogging etiquette generally requires that bloggers “show their work” by providing links to their sources (or, if no Web link is available, to explain where readers can go to find the s…