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

[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.