Supreme Court News

Not directly relevant to Georgia, but they certainly apply:

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in the Bong Hits for Jesus case that the school was within it’s power to suspend the kid who organized the sign.

They also ruled 5-4 in the Wisconsin Right to Life case that blocking organizations from running politically themed ads right before the election is an abridges the 1st Amendment. Of note, 3 of the 5 justices in the majority wanted to declare pretty much all of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act unconstitutional.

8 comments

  1. liberator says:

    The decision in the Bong case is a terrible case of Judicial Activism. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say schools can ban speech by students based on unpopular content. Roberts and Alito should never have been confirmed.

  2. liberator says:

    The case regarding issue advocacy ads was a good ruling that should have gone further and overuled the 2003 precedent altogether. Roberts is a hypocrite ie.. He was correct in saying the tie should go against the censor in the Wisconsin case,but he should have said the same thing in the Bong case.

  3. Doug Deal says:

    Notice that the Bush administration sided with banning the ads. So much for Bush’s declaration that he thought the law was unconstitutional when he signed it.

    Electing Bush was the single biggest mistake of the Republican party in modern times, and still so many Republican senators are loyal to that creep?

  4. liberator says:

    The Bush administration stated that the Constitution was nothing but a piece of paper. Bush,Gonzales, and that crowd are every bit as anti-constitution as Reno and Clinton!

  5. Know Nothing says:

    Liberator-

    Prior to 1865, the Constitution did not explicitly prohibit enslavement, so is the Dred Scott decision your idea of good judicial restraint?

  6. MidGaDawg says:

    Know Nothing –

    Sometimes proper decisions will be unpopular. Undesirable laws can be forced off the books through repeal and Constitutional Amendments. We have a process through which the public’s representatives (NOT unelected judges) make laws.

    You can cite Dred Scott (or even Brown v. BOE) to make people who believe in the Constitution as written look like a bunch of racists, but that’s two cases in history. There are plenty of good reasons why substituting judges’ personal opinions for law lead us down the wrong path.

Comments are closed.