No Bong Hits 4 Jesus

Two more Supreme Court rulings in, and both I find equally disturbing, especially in the vote which was drawn right across the conservative-liberal border.

First up was the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, where the court found 5-4 that:

"Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote..."

But here's the thing that rubs me wrong: though the event was school sponsored, the student who wrote the banner, 18 year old Joseph Frederick, was standing on a public side walk. Further more, while no one can deny that "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is talking about drugs (most specifically, pot) it's debatable that the message 'advocates' drug use. If you were walking down the street and saw "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" on a wall, would you run out to buy pot? Here's the ironic thing about what happened: Before this all went down, alot of religious groups were supporting the Frederick because they wanted to defend his right to use religious terms in messages. This conservative ruling manages to slide past the whole religious aspect while limiting speech for students, while highlighting "drug use"as 'bad'. Wow, they got the whole trifecta.

But just in case you were thinking that the court wasn't going to strengthen religion this voting season then allow me to draw your attention to the courts 5-4 ruling that blocked a taxpayer law suit that would have allowed them to sue the Bush administration for funding Faith based groups:

"The taxpayers' group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc., objected to government conferences in which administration officials encourage religious charities to apply for federal grants.

"Taxpayers in the case "set out a parade of horribles that they claim could occur" unless the court stopped the Bush administration initiative, wrote Justice Samuel Alito. "Of course, none of these things has happened."


"The justices' decision revolved around a 1968 Supreme Court ruling that enabled taxpayers to challenge government programs that promote religion.

"The 1968 decision involved the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which financed teaching and instructional materials in religious schools in low-income areas."

Let me reiterate, the court didn't actually judge the suit. They judged that these groups didn't have the right to sue the administration. I think Justice Souter dissent summed up my ire:

"The majority "closes the door on these taxpayers because the executive branch, and not the legislative branch, caused their injury," wrote Souter. "I see no basis for this distinction.""

I also wonder how this fits in with the idea of taxatation and representation. I'm not sure, but I believe this money is coming from the excucative and not the legislative, but it's still tax money. If that's so shouldn't tax payers have a right to question and object to how this money is allocated?

So to summarize what has the SC decided on today, if you're a student you can't say anything that talks about drugs, um, anywhere, and, if you pay taxes, you can't even sue the Bush administration. And both votes were right down party lines, where it will remain until the Justices die, the legacy of Bush.

Then again I'll defer to Cros for his final judgement. He like, knows law and stuff.