Pubdate: Tue, 16 Jul 2002
Source: Northwest Florida Daily News (FL)
Copyright: 2002 Northwest Florida Daily News
Contact:  http://www.nwfdailynews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/313
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)

HIGH COURT RULINGS WERE A MIXED BAG

In terms of the number of people affected, the most important decision of 
the U.S. Supreme Court session just ended was probably the Cleveland school 
voucher case. Although voucher advocates sometimes overestimate popular 
support for voucher systems, a number of voucher plans had been "on hold" 
awaiting the court's decision. Now they'll be able to move forward.

Some have complained that since most of the voucher money in Cleveland went 
to religious schools, the decision authorized government aid to religion, 
weakening the separation between church and state.

But the court's bottomline principle was equal treatment -- if you set up a 
voucher system, you can't treat those who prefer to use it at a religious 
school differently from those who don't -- which is healthy.

As John Eastman of Chapman University Law School noted, Justice Clarence 
Thomas' concurring opinion offered a reinterpretation of the "establishment 
of religion" clause that could give states more flexibility in cooperating 
with religious institutions. Professor Eastman thinks this opinion will 
wield influence in years to come.

Beyond that decision, it is difficult to see a "theme" in this court 
session, and it included plenty of decisions worthy of criticism.

One of the worst was the Tahoe land-use decision. The court held that 
property owners prevented by an oft-extended building moratorium from using 
their property --and thus victimized by a regulatory partial taking of 
their land -- were not entitled to compensation.

Roger Pilon, constitutional scholar at the Cato Institute, said the result 
was that "those owners who had already built, thereby contributing to the 
pollution the government wanted to control, had their property values 
increased. Those who hadn't built lost their entire investment, having done 
nothing to worsen pollution. The situation cried out for justice, but the 
court was oblivious."

The court did better on straight First Amendment cases, invalidating 
overreaching Internet regulations touted as being "for the children."

It will be tested when the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill 
comes before it during the next session.

On drug issues the court was awful, continuing to carve out more drug-war 
exceptions to the Bill of Rights. A decision to authorize blanket 
drugtesting of students who engage in suspicious activities like joining 
the chess club was beneath contempt. A decision to allow the eviction of 
grandparents from public housing if their grandchildren smoked a joint 
three blocks away without their knowledge showed a dedication to drug-war 
tactics that defies common sense.

Perhaps the court's next session will see a more principled adherence to 
constitutional liberty.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jackl