Four new Supreme Court decisions

06/26/2007 07:16:32 PM · #26

Originally posted by dudephil:

But it's not on school grounds.

Then I guess you have an argument...

:-D

ETA: Still not political speech.

Message edited by author 2007-06-26 19:17:25.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

06/26/2007 07:18:03 PM · #27

Sorry dude but I can't let you off that easy. Why should I get in trouble for breaking rules off of school grounds but this kid shouldn't get in trouble for doing the same thing?

Edit: How is Bong Hits for Jesus political speech?

Message edited by author 2007-06-26 19:18:29.

06/26/2007 07:20:00 PM · #28

Originally posted by dudephil:

Dude please read the oral arguments. Other wise we will continue to run around in circles. The facts of the case are the facts of the case.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

06/26/2007 08:04:39 PM · #29

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

The facts of the case are the facts of the case.

I totally agree; which is why it turned out the way it did.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/26/2007 08:08:32 PM · #30

Originally posted by dudephil:

I interpret it as a suggestion that people of a certain religious and political persuasion, known for their extreme narrow-mindedness in the area of personal freedom (despite their sham claim to the "conservative" label), might feel differently about certain issues should they allow their brain chemistry to be altered by one of many natural or man-made psychotropic agents.

Pot or Prozac, a bud or a Bud(weiser), altering brain chemistry has a long and proud history (and almost certainly reaches back into human pre-history), yet Bud is the "official beer" of the "National Pastime" while a bud will get you time in the Federal pen and a virtual loss of your citizenship ... to point out the hypocrisy of our current drug policy certainly falls within the realm of "political speech" to me

Message edited by author 2007-06-26 20:09:46.

06/26/2007 08:09:00 PM · #31

Originally posted by dudephil:

I totally agree; which is why it turned out the way it did.

LOL good one :-P

Still I encourage you to read the oral arguments.

After all it is just opinion, mine, yours the SC's. I will continue to say what I believe even after your Partisan majority court takes our rights away. Hello gulag! :-D

Message edited by author 2007-06-26 20:09:54.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

06/26/2007 08:18:57 PM · #32

Whoa, whoa, whoa. MY partisan majority court? It's either OUR court or nobodys cuz I'm no Republican. Surely I can agree with a decision such as this and not make it about politics can't I? Of course, this is what has become of us today. We either have to be on that side or this side which is why we'll never get out of the rut that is continually sucking us in deeper.

Once again, if he had been on that street on a weekend day or weekday after shool that didn't conflict with a school sponsored event we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/26/2007 08:21:08 PM · #33

Originally posted by dudephil:

Sorry brotha' strike that from the record. :-)

On the other, like I said to old Mr.666, we will have to agree to disagree.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

06/26/2007 08:23:16 PM · #34

What especially bothered me was that the principal suspended him for an extra day because he argued he had a First Amendment right to post the sign. To suspend him for holding up the sign is at least a debatable issue, but to suspend him for attempting to defend himself should not be.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

06/26/2007 08:28:31 PM · #35

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I totally agree with that unless, of course, the kid said "It's my right, It's my right" about 476 times like most kids that age do and the principal told him, "I heard you the first 475 times and if you say it again you get another day", to which the kids says, "it's my right".

I'm not saying this is the case but I am saying that it's possible. Hell, I've done it.

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

06/26/2007 08:41:30 PM · #36

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by dudephil:

I totally agree; which is why it turned out the way it did.

LOL good one :-P

Still I encourage you to read the oral arguments.

After all it is just opinion, mine, yours the SC's. I will continue to say what I believe even after your Partisan majority court takes our rights away. Hello gulag! :-D

I'm kind of a middle of the road guy when it comes to politics so this is a questions to your statement. What rights are being taken from you or any other american? I'm asking in a non sarcastic way, I would like to know. Is that a broad statement b/c you disagree w/ particular rulings or are some of your rights that are outlined in the bill of rights being taken from you?

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

06/26/2007 09:07:14 PM · #37

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by dudephil:

I totally agree; which is why it turned out the way it did.

LOL good one :-P

Still I encourage you to read the oral arguments.

After all it is just opinion, mine, yours the SC's. I will continue to say what I believe even after your Partisan majority court takes our rights away. Hello gulag! :-D

I'm kind of a middle of the road guy when it comes to politics so this is a questions to your statement. What rights are being taken from you or any other american? I'm asking in a non sarcastic way, I would like to know. Is that a broad statement b/c you disagree w/ particular rulings or are some of your rights that are outlined in the bill of rights being taken from you?

First that statement is part frustration as I have been arguing my point and the point of the 4 minority Supreme Court Justices across two threads (yes baby Jesus you were so right even with bong hits :-P).

I too am a "Middle of the road" guy.

The problem I have with this is two fold. One there is already precedent from the court in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District . Running this all the way up to the SC was not called for in my mind but as it was, the fact that the majority Justices, rather then kicking it out or back down to a lower court, took it as an opportunity to make a political decision rather than defend the First Amendment.

What further solidifies my position is the fact that Chief Justice Roberts said (Thanks GeneralE) in one of the other rulings released yesterday regarding the First Amendment
"Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.".
Rather hypocritical the way I see it. All rulings yesterday were 5-4.

So what right is being taken? Why my right to free speech. It is not being taken away en-mass rather chipped at a little at a time but that is after all how they goâ�¦

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/26/2007 09:57:23 PM · #38

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

So what right is being taken? Why my right to free speech. It is not being taken away en-mass rather chipped at a little at a time but that is after all how they goâ�¦

But you seem to be ok with it in other instances. I can't help but wonder if this discussion would even be taking place had it been a liberal majority decision coming to the same verdict.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

06/26/2007 10:56:54 PM · #39

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
So what right is being taken? Why my right to free speech. It is not being taken away en-mass rather chipped at a little at a time but that is after all how they goâ�¦

But you seem to be ok with it in other instances. I can't help but wonder if this discussion would even be taking place had it been a liberal majority decision coming to the same verdict.

Ah the paradox! :-D

And no I am not OK with it. I thought you would have seen that in my words. Guess I have to work on that if you missed my point. As with the other instances, I fear much more encroachment in the future.

Message edited by author 2007-06-26 22:59:48.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/26/2007 11:22:46 PM · #40

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

I thought you would have seen that in my words.

Words? I saw some random letters grouped together and the occassional dot. Is that what you're referring to?

06/26/2007 11:41:51 PM · #41

:-D

drewbixcube

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

06/26/2007 11:46:51 PM · #42

Originally posted by citymars:

Finally, the Court majority sided with developers who prefer that state governments retain the right to issue permits to discharge waste in water. Because of the Court's ruling, the Clean Water Act will continue to be enforced by state governments and the Federal Endangered Species Act will not be able to overrule other conflicting laws. Business developers have applauded the decision, while environmental rights advocates find it to be a major setback.

See, the problem with the EPA running the show is that every time the Presidency changes, the policy changes. By the time everything is updated and the new policy is in effect...we've had another election and the policy of the new President agrees with the one two back. So the EPA is stuck going round and round between policies and never can enforce the current ones. Not to mention that administrative positions in the EPA change personnel just about every time there is a new face in the White House. My environmental policy course instructor had me write a giant report on â��Why the EPA under G.W. Bush was worse than under Clintonâ�� (loaded question by the way...liberal professor). I came to the conclusion that both were equal in that they were stuck for years trying to enact policies that completely differed from the policies of each Presidentâ��s respective predecessor. Each individual State usually has a pretty good hold on their environmental policiesâ�¦not a lot of flip-flopping. So, I would rather see each State create consistent policies year after year, as opposed to waiting for the EPA to change it back to the way it was and re-write everything to how it used to be.

Please continue the â��Bong hits for Jesusâ�� debate without me, as I will follow the â��If you donâ��t have anything nice to sayâ�¦â�� rule.

-drew

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/26/2007 11:48:48 PM · #43

Originally posted by dudephil:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
What especially bothered me was that the principal suspended him for an extra day because he argued he had a First Amendment right to post the sign. To suspend him for holding up the sign is at least a debatable issue, but to suspend him for attempting to defend himself should not be.

I totally agree with that unless, of course, the kid said "It's my right, It's my right" about 476 times like most kids that age do and the principal told him, "I heard you the first 475 times and if you say it again you get another day", to which the kids says, "it's my right".

I'm not saying this is the case but I am saying that it's possible. Hell, I've done it.

Excuse me, but that's a pretty lame argument based on an assumption you manufacture out of whole cloth.

Since this "kid" had the stick-to-itiveness and courage of his convictions (pun intended) to carry his case to the Supreme court, I'd say he has a far greater understanding of and respect for the US constitutional system of government than you do.

Message edited by author 2007-06-26 23:50:01.