We're going to see a lot of 5-4 decisions...

[sleigh]

The NY Times has published an editorial that pretty much sums up my attitude: the truly horrible Bush legacy will be the Supreme Court, a legacy that will last far longer and have far more impact than the wretched Reign of Bush. The Supreme Court is already showing that with its current line-up, and especially with Justice Roberts leading the way, we're heading into radically conservative judicial waters.

Thanks, Supremes, for making certain that we're going to have more Swift Boat garbage during the next election. Thanks, Supremes, for putting a muzzle over the idea of free speech. Thanks, Supremes, for further blurring the distinction between church and state. You hit the trifecta with this sequence of three rulings.

And thanks, GWB, for making it all possible. Your legacy is in place.

What a shame for the country.

Comments

[rmeidaking.livejournal.com]

I found myself thinking cynically last night: "They're counting on the Democrats to be so anti-gun and anti-death penalty that no one actually will take out their shotgun and shoot them." They're counting on Nancy Pelosi not wanting to jeopardize her position by actually starting real investigations of what's going on over at the Executive branch.

[ellameena.livejournal.com]

Wait a minute..."Put a muzzle over free speech"? Are you sure you're talking about the right ruling? The court ruled that the first amendment protects the speech of a campaign ad. The McCain Feingold bill restricted the speech within campaign ads in the 30 day period running up to the election. The Supreme Court rolled to the side of speech, not a restriction of speech. In what way do you interpret this as putting a "muzzle" on free speech?

[maiac.livejournal.com]

I guessed that the "muzzle over free speech" refers to the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" ruling, which set a nasty precedent that speech could be suppressed if somebody disapproves of the message.

[ellameena.livejournal.com]

Ah, that makes somewhat more sense, although I think too much is probably being made of it. I can't tell from the linked editorial, but it sounds like a standard "student gets censored by university" argument. I can't tell who the "public officials" are that penalized the student, but I suspect it is simply his school. And schools have been kicking students out for offensive speech for a long time. The First Amendment protects us from legal penalties. I am not sure it protects us from social consequences such as being fired or expelled. I could be wrong, though. I don't have access to the details of the case.

[sethb.livejournal.com]

The high school students wasn't in school, he was across the street from the school.

The First Amendment protects us from *government actions*. Government-run schools are included. Private employers (and schools) are not.

[ellameena.livejournal.com]

Well, it doesn't make sense to me that a public school student could have more constitutional rights than a private school student. I dug up the text of the amendment, and it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I don't know the case history behind freedom of speech. I am sure it is huge and very nuanced in its interpretation, but the court's decision actually seems reasonable to me when I look at the text. And it also seems like common sense. Congress cannot abridge our freedom of speech. It doesn't guarantee that we will never experience any consequences for it.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

The free speech reference refers to the third decision they rendered, not the first. To quote from the editorial:

"Nor did the court’s concern for free speech extend to actually allowing free speech in the oddball case of an Alaska student who was suspended from high school in 2002 after he unfurled a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” while the Olympic torch passed. The ruling by Chief Justice Roberts said public officials did not violate the student’s rights by punishing him for words that promote a drug message at an off-campus event. This oblique reference to drugs hardly justifies such mangling of sound precedent and the First Amendment."

I wouldn't have a problem with the ruling had the student been on-campus. But this was an off-campus event, where it seems strange (to me, anyway) that the student's admittedly stupid banner should get him into any kind of trouble at all with his school.

[alces2.livejournal.com]

I agree that I don't understand why unfurling a sign off-campus should get him suspended and I don't understand why the Supreme Court should rule in the school's favor. Stupid banner, yeah, probably. Stupid decision relative to free speech, yes, definitely, IMHO.

[alces2.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I do not like the legacy GWB is leaving nor do I think I will like the decisions that will be made by the current Supreme Court judges.