Supreme Court

[CptSternn]

With the recent rulings of the Supreme Court, I thought a new thread would be in order to discuss the outcome and predictions.

The biggest issues so far...

1. The Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long ''Bong Hits 4 Jesus'' banner. Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, The ruling: 5-4.

2. The Supreme Court ruled Monday that ordinary taxpayers cannot challenge a White House initiative that helps religious charities get a share of federal money. The ruling: 5-4.

3. The Supreme Court gave bush an important victory by clearing the way for corporate-funded broadcast ads and removing caps for these ads before next year's election. The ruling: 5-4.

4. The Supreme Court sided with developers and the Bush administration Monday in a dispute with environmentalists over protecting endangered species. The ruling: 5-4.

If you review each case, Americans lose more and more of their rights to the government. They can't wear/display any color/text/picture which can be construed as having a drug related meaning. To do so, even if they do it from home after school hours means they can be suspended or kicked out of the school they are attending.

You can't challenge the U.S. government on its program to give money to churches if you don't belong to a church they recognise. Only Prodestant Christian organisations get the monies, and now, no one else except them can challenge it in court. Don't see that happening.

Remember the swift boat ads? Well, they were banned, because private citizens could say anything they want, true or not, in private ads. Now they are legal again, and the other law the put a cap on the amount of money a private group could pay for such ads? Yeah, the removed that too so now private groups can funnel as much as they want into a campaign outside of finance law by saying it was an investment into studio production for an ad.

And last but not least, builders can finally wipe out an entire species of animal if those animals are in their way when they are building new homes. Lets not forget the ruling last year (also 5-4) that builders can TAKE your home or land and turn it into a mall if the government feels that it will bring money into the local community. Now they can take your land, even if it has endangered species on it, and develop it.

Notice any trends? 5-4. The 2 right wingers that bush put on the court have made all the difference in the world. Every decision being passed favors the bush admin. Too bad you can't vote them out, eh?

[Drake Dun]

Could you give me the citation for each of those cases? I want to check the facts. If you can dig it back up, please include a citation for the case from last year that you mentioned in the second to last paragraph.

Thanks.

Drake

[Circle V]

Keep in mind, Sternn, that, historically, the ideal Republican government is severely limited in size and power. Obviously, Bush (and most recent GOP presidents) have not remained faithful to Republican ideals. True "right-wingers" would have ruled in the opposite manner as the two judges Bush has appointed.

There is certainly more to each case than your brief summaries could possibly contain. I'd appreciate links.

[Sobeh]

here's the student speech ruling:

have a look

"Held: Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick."

"Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.

A significant fact barely mentioned by the Court sheds a revelatory light on the motives of both the students and the principal of Juneau-Douglas High School (JDHS). On January 24, 2002, the Olympic Torch Relay gave those Alaska residents a rare chance to appear on national television. As Joseph Frederick repeatedly explained, he did not address the curious message--"BONG HiTS 4 JESUS"--to his fellow students. He just wanted to get the camera crews' attention. Moreover, concern about a nationwide evaluation of the conduct of the JDHS student body would have justified the principal's decision to remove an attention-grabbing 14-foot banner, even if it had merely proclaimed "Glaciers Melt!""

there are your details.

and hi again.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Sobeh, if I hug you will you stay a while?

[Sobeh]

the environmental issue is more complex, and refers to a great many other statutes.

have a look

justice alito delivered the opinion of the court:

"These cases concern the interplay between two federal environmental statutes. Section 402(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that the Environmental Protection Agency transfer certain permitting powers to state authorities upon an application and a showing that nine specified criteria have been met. Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 provides that a federal agency must consult with agencies designated by the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior in order to “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency. . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species.” The question presented is whether §7(a)(2) effectively operates as
tenth criterion on which the transfer of permitting power under the first statute must be conditioned. We conclude that it does not. The transfer of permitting authority to state authorities—who will exercise that authority under continuing federal oversight to ensure compliance with relevant mandates of the Endangered Species Act and other federal environmental protection statutes—was proper. We therefore reverse the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit."

whew. legal writing can suck.

"JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting.

When faced with competing statutory mandates, it is our duty to give full effect to both if at all possible. See, e.g., Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 551 (1974) (“[W]hen two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective”). The Court fails at this task. Its opinion unsuccessfully tries to reconcile the CWA and ESA by relying on a federal regulation, 50 CFR §402.03 (2006), which it reads as limiting the reach of §7(a)(2) to only discretionary federal actions, see ante, at 17–19. Not only is this reading inconsistent with the text and history of §402.03, but it is fundamentally inconsistent with the ESA itself."

anyway.

[Sobeh]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Could you give me the citation for each of those cases? I want to check the facts. If you can dig it back up, please include a citation for the case from last year that you mentioned in the second to last paragraph.

Thanks.

Drake

here is what you're after. the case is:

KELO V. NEW LONDON (04-108)
268 Conn. 1, 843 A. 2d 500, affirmed.

[Sobeh]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Sobeh, if I hug you will you stay a while?

hugs are all that's keeping me around these days. i'll add any to my pile that i can get.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I couldn't come up with an idea for a net hug that didn't involve an obnoxious teddy bear card, so instead I shall dance the Kirby Dance:

<(0.0<) <(0.0V) (V0.0V) (V0.0)> (>0.0)> (^0.0)> (^0.0^)
Do the Kirby dance!
<(0.0<) <(0.0V) (V0.0V) (V0.0)> (>0.0)> (^0.0)> (^0.0^)

[Sobeh]

the kirby dance got at least a smirk. (\(^.^) thanks!

---

it might be pertinent to point out that the dissenting judges these days are usually the same folk. does it shed doubt on the justice system when political leanings are reflected in what ought be objective law, or is the political issue a red herring, distracting from the large-scale social philosophies which underpin (perhaps unconsciously) the entire arena?

[CptSternn]

Ok here ye go...

Supreme Court Limits Students’ Speech Rights

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/A...=1&oref=slogin

Justices bar taxpayers from suing over White House faith-based program

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...ased25-on.html

Justices approve preelection 'issue ads'

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...ased25-on.html

Business Prevails in Environmental Case

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/A...r=1&oref=login



Also, another right-wing win for big business today in the Supreme Court...

Century-Old Ban Lifted on Minimum Retail Pricing

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/wa...syahoo&emc=rss

WASHINGTON, June 28 — Striking down an antitrust rule nearly a century old, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that it was not automatically unlawful for manufacturers and distributors to agree on minimum retail prices.

This is yet another victory for bush, and a loss for the American people. Rolling back anti-trust protection to allow businesses to set their own minimum pricing. That means Ford, Chevy, etc. can all legally get together now and say our cheapest car will cost X amount of dollars.

It means all burger joints can now set a minimum price for their cheapest item, so other joints won't have things cheaper.

It also means manufatures can get together and setup a price scheme for all raw materials - meaning if you want to buy widgets from company A, you noo longer get a deal because of a minimum price all companies collude on, buying those widgets is the same across the board so they don't have to compete. If you need to buy a certain type of widget and only three companies make it, you can bet the lowest price will always be the same.

Goodbye to free competition, hello high prices falsely inflated by oligarchies. They have now totally legalised what was once known as 'price fixing'.

Also notice, once again, 5-4 vote.