Four new Supreme Court decisions

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

06/26/2007 04:20:08 PM · #1

The Supreme Court has issued four rulings. In every case, the Court has split 5-4, with Bush's appointees Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito siding with Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas.

In the first case, the Court ruled 5-4 that an anti-abortion group's television ads, which encouraged voters to contact Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) while he was up for re-election, were not in violation of campaign finance rules. In 2002, campaign finance rules were revised to ban corporations and unions from running "issue ads" that included the names of candidates for federal office within 60 days of a general election and within 30 days of a primary or caucus. Republicans and business interests have been leading the effort to challenge these rules. Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the decision for the majority, said that an advertiser's intention to impact an election is not important, as long as they can show that it is a legitimate issue ad. "This is a big win for big money," Mary Wilson, president of the League of Women Voters, said. "Chief Justice Roberts has reopened the door to corruption.

The Supreme Court also ruled that tax-paying citizens do not have standing to challenge President Bush's faith-based initiative program. The Freedom From Religion Foundation led a lawsuit, objecting to speeches at government conferences in which administration officials encourage religious charities to apply for federal funding. The plaintiffs argued that the spending of federal money to promote and aid church groups violated the separation of church and state. Despite a 1968 Supreme Court ruling that said that taxpayers could challenge the government for spending money on religion, the current Supreme Court threw out the case for lack of standing.

In a third case, the Supreme Court ruled against a high school student, who insisted that his display of a banner with the words "bong hits 4 Jesus" at a school-sanctioned event was within his first amendment right to free speech. The Court sided with the school principal, who suspended the student.

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.

levyj413

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

06/26/2007 04:23:27 PM · #2

Just one clarification: the high school student wasn't at a school event, he was across the street. Which, to me, makes the difference.

bergiekat

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II

06/26/2007 04:31:53 PM · #3

The workings of our "elected officials at all levels" in these most recent years has hosed up this country big time!

[Runs off to find something to make the madness stop!]

06/26/2007 04:44:35 PM · #4

Originally posted by bergiekat:

[Runs off to find something to make the madness stop!]

When you find it could you let me know. I want the madness to stop as well. :-/

hyperfocal

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

06/26/2007 05:14:35 PM · #5

Case 1 & 3 in short: corporations have the right to free speech, but individuals don't. God, I really hope John Paul Stevens can hold out until that psycho is out of the Whitehouse.

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

06/26/2007 05:15:35 PM · #6

Originally posted by levyj413:

Just one clarification: the high school student wasn't at a school event, he was across the street. Which, to me, makes the difference.

They had been let out of classes and were being accompanied by teachers at the time. That's what makes the difference to me.

06/26/2007 05:17:10 PM · #7

Originally posted by dudephil:

Originally posted by levyj413:
Just one clarification: the high school student wasn't at a school event, he was across the street. Which, to me, makes the difference.

They had been let out of classes and were being accompanied by teachers at the time. That's what makes the difference to me.

But he had not been at school that day. He had not set one foot on campus.

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

06/26/2007 05:21:07 PM · #8

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by dudephil:

Originally posted by levyj413:
Just one clarification: the high school student wasn't at a school event, he was across the street. Which, to me, makes the difference.

They had been let out of classes and were being accompanied by teachers at the time. That's what makes the difference to me.

But he had not been at school that day. He had not set one foot on campus.

I really don't see how that matters. It's not still a school sponsored event even though he didn't attend that day?

06/26/2007 05:21:43 PM · #9

Dude read the oral arguments of the case.

kenskid

Nikon D700

06/26/2007 05:23:23 PM · #10

I'm with the ones who says it doesn't matter. He was near enough to be considered "part of the school" I guess.

The Supreme Court backs me on this fact!

KS

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

citymars

Nikon D700

06/26/2007 05:23:28 PM · #11

There's a bigger picture than where the young man stood.

The Bush-stacked Supreme Court is doing exactly what they were appointed to do. They are promoting a pro-big business, pro-religious right agenda.

The "bong hits for jesus" case is being framed as an educational/anti-drug issue, but what about the "blaspheme" aspect?

Meanwhile, Cheney's trying to claim exemption from having to account for use of classified materials.

My mind has been boggled so many times in the last eight years, I think my goggle-meter has been broken.]

strangeghost

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/26/2007 05:25:17 PM · #12

I am most blown away by the second one. I thought this one was a slam dunk, even for a court leaning right. I'm afraid this will empower the religious right - and the current white house - even more, setting the stage for accelerated erosion of the separation of church/state.

And yes, I'm a card-carrying member of the Freedom from Religion Foundation (right here in Madison!).

06/26/2007 05:47:47 PM · #13

Originally posted by kenskid:

I'm with the ones who says it doesn't matter. He was near enough to be considered "part of the school" I guess.

The Supreme Court backs me on this fact!

KS

Only the 5 of them that are in your party. Not the other 4.

Message edited by author 2007-06-26 17:48:52.

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

06/26/2007 05:57:15 PM · #14

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by kenskid:
I'm with the ones who says it doesn't matter. He was near enough to be considered "part of the school" I guess.

The Supreme Court backs me on this fact!

KS

Only the 5 of them that are in your party. Not the other 4.

C'mon waz. No political party stood to gain or lose in this particular case. Sure, it exists but I'm not so certain it does in this instance.

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

06/26/2007 06:01:54 PM · #15

Originally posted by dudephil:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by kenskid:
I'm with the ones who says it doesn't matter. He was near enough to be considered "part of the school" I guess.

The Supreme Court backs me on this fact!

KS

Only the 5 of them that are in your party. Not the other 4.

C'mon waz. No political party stood to gain or lose in this particular case. Sure, it exists but I'm not so certain it does in this instance.

Perhaps I am being a tad cynical but it seems to me it has more to do with the administration's "War on drugs" then protecting Students free speech.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/26/2007 06:02:23 PM · #16

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

None of the 9 judges from what I read in the transcrips and dissents states a belief that the kid was NOT at a school event. Maybe I missed it. Do you have a quote to the contrary?

06/26/2007 06:03:28 PM · #17

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by kenskid:
I'm with the ones who says it doesn't matter. He was near enough to be considered "part of the school" I guess.

The Supreme Court backs me on this fact!

KS

Only the 5 of them that are in your party. Not the other 4.

None of the 9 judges from what I read in the transcrips and dissents states a belief that the kid was NOT at a school event. Maybe I missed it. Do you have a quote to the contrary?

School event maybe but not as SKID put it. "Part of the school".

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

06/26/2007 06:06:03 PM · #18

Originally posted by citymars:

I'm not going to argue anything you said there other than the "bong hits for Jesus" case. Blasphemy is on protest signs every single day and no one is arrested. This is simply a case of a kid using poor judgement during a school function. Maybe he didn't realize it was a school sponsored event but that doesn't matter. Sometimes I don't realize that I'm going 70 in a 55 but when the blue lights hit me, ignorance is no excuse.

And waz, if this would've been on a weekend where no events were being carried out then you would be hearing the opposite from me. I'll bet you'd be hearing the opposite from the Supreme Court as well. Call it the admins war on drugs or whatever but the fact is that drugs are illegal (dammit) and this kid was promoting the use of them while at an event.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/26/2007 06:11:46 PM · #19

Originally posted by dudephil:

And waz, if this would've been on a weekend where no events were being carried out then you would be hearing the opposite from me. I'll bet you'd be hearing the opposite from the Supreme Court as well. Call it the admins war on drugs or whatever but the fact is that drugs are illegal (dammit) and this kid was promoting the use of them while at an event.

Well that is the crux of it. Was he promoting drug use or just being a stupid kid looking for a laugh and TV time.

I myself concur with Justice John Paul Stevens when he said:

"...I agree with the Court that the principal should not be
held liable for pulling down Frederick's banner. See Harlow
v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 818 (1982). I would hold,
however, that the school's interest in protecting its students
from exposure to speech "reasonably regarded as
promoting illegal drug use," ante, at 1, cannot justify
disciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an ambiguous
statement to a television audience simply because it
contained an oblique reference to drugs. The First
Amendment demands more, indeed, much more."

Message edited by author 2007-06-26 18:12:06.

Canon EOS-20D

06/26/2007 06:13:15 PM · #20

Duplicate conversations makes baby jesus cry. Bong hits or not.

06/26/2007 06:14:34 PM · #21

Originally posted by mk:

Duplicate conversations makes baby jesus cry. Bong hits or not.

Yes it is very hard. Sorry baby Jesus.

Message edited by author 2007-06-26 18:14:46.

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

06/26/2007 06:30:12 PM · #22

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Was he promoting drug use or just being a stupid kid looking for a laugh and TV time.

But, it seems to me that this falls on the responsibility of the offender rather than the Supreme Court to decide for us. All we can go on is what the sign said.

As I said earlier, if I'm at a cross country run in the woods next to my school and I tell the principal who I just ran upon to get facked in front of 20 people I would get in trouble. Sure, I was just looking for a laugh but it doesn't mean that I won't suffer the consequences. Hell, I did many things in school for a laugh that I paid dearly for.

suiteness

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro for Canon

06/26/2007 06:38:54 PM · #23

where can i get a 'bong hits for jesus' t-shirt?

p.s.- sorry baby jesus

edit: here it is! sorry!

Message edited by author 2007-06-26 18:45:27.

06/26/2007 06:39:09 PM · #24

Originally posted by dudephil:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Was he promoting drug use or just being a stupid kid looking for a laugh and TV time.

But, it seems to me that this falls on the responsibility of the offender rather than the Supreme Court to decide for us. All we can go on is what the sign said.

As I said earlier, if I'm at a cross country run in the woods next to my school and I tell the principal who I just ran upon to get facked in front of 20 people I would get in trouble. Sure, I was just looking for a laugh but it doesn't mean that I won't suffer the consequences. Hell, I did many things in school for a laugh that I paid dearly for.

My answer to the first statement is the same as the last time. I agree with Justice Stevens.

In regards to the second, it's not the same. Of course you should get in trouble as that is not really political speech and you are saying it to your principal.

Message edited by author 2007-06-26 18:43:34.