Pubdate: Thu, 28 Jun 2007
Source: Daily Reveille (LA Edu)
Copyright: 2007, Daily Reveille
Contact:  http://www.lsureveille.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2879
Author: Erik Browne
http://www.mapinc.org/people/Joseph+Frederick (Joseph Frederick)

SUPREME COURT RULINGS SHOW CONSERVATIVE BIAS

What Do Drugs, Jesus And The White House All Have In Common?

For conspiracy theorists the answer might be mind control. Or for 
some of the President's critics it could be Bush's alleged cocaine 
use and pandering to the religious right. But the answer is simply 
that recent legal decisions involved all three.

The First Amendment came under attack Monday when the Supreme Court - 
showing its new conservative leanings - ruled on two particular 
cases: Morse v. Frederick and Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation.

On the first case, better known as the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, the 
Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that schools have the right to censor student 
speech, even if it is non-disruptive, if it can be "reasonably 
regarded as encouraging illegal drug use."

Although high school student Joseph Frederick, who held up a banner 
reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" across the street from his high school 
while the 2002 Olympic torch relay passed by, claimed it was a 
nonsensical phrase intended to grab media attention, the Court sided 
with the principal who took down the banner and suspended Frederick.

Regardless of whether the banner actually supported or advocated 
smoking marijuana, this decision to further limit student speech is 
disasterous. Frederick was not on school property, was not disruptive 
to the educational process and there is clearly no evidence this 
sophomoric prank could or did incite imminent lawless action. 
Therefore, this speech should be protected under the First Amendment.

This decision is going to have a chilling effect on students' rights 
to free speech - especially when it may be about the injustices of 
the war on drugs or protests for the legalization of marijuana. Like 
this decision, the Supreme Court's ruling on Hein v. Freedom From 
Religion Foundation, though narrow, also sets a dangerous precedent 
on First Amendment constitutional law.

In another 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court barred taxpayers from being 
able to sue the White House for alleged violations of the First 
Amendment's establishment clause.

The plaintiffs, a group of atheists and agnostics from the Freedom 
 From Religion Foundation, brought the lawsuit against Jay Hein, 
director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community 
Initiatives, objecting to the use of their federal tax dollars to 
fund the religious activities of the White House.

The Court dismissed the suit on the grounds that existing precedent 
only allowed such legal action in challenges against Congressional 
appropriations for religious groups. This precedent, the 1968 ruling 
of Flast v. Cohen, created an exception to the rule that barred 
taxpayers from suing the government based on the legality of spending 
decisions since taxpayers can not suffer any tangible injury.

The exception allows for suits to be brought against the government 
that challenge spending in support of religion. Without this 
exception, the establishment clause would be rendered merely advisory 
regarding government spending on religion.

But the Court ruled this exception does not apply to the executive 
branch and, in throwing it out, has essentially shielded the White 
House from any legal challenges from ordinary taxpaying citizens that 
allege a violation of the separation of church and state. This gives 
the President, the White House and the entire federal bureaucracy a 
carte blanche to promote religion.

Justice Samuel Alito attempted to reassure citizens this situation 
was not a threat when he wrote in the majority opinion that "in the 
unlikely event that any of these executive actions did take place, 
Congress could quickly step in."

But the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United 
for Separation of Church and State, told the Associated Press he 
found Alito's statement that Congress could step in "quite incredible 
because the damage is done when the president acts." Lynn said 
Congress is not able to anticipate the actions of the executive 
branch that could potentially violate the establishment clause. "We 
have the courts to do precisely this, rein in the president or the 
Congress," Lynn told the AP.

Although the executive branch can no longer be sued for alleged 
violations of the separation of church and state, most church-state 
lawsuits are not affected by this ruling. Since the ruling upheld the 
exception created by Flast v. Cohen, taxpayers can still sue Congress 
for appropriations for religious activities and groups on the grounds 
of establishment cause violations.

Nonetheless, the ideals of the First Amendment have been seriously 
weakened following the Supreme Court's decisions on these two cases. 
Perhaps it is the Supreme Court that has been taking bong hits. They 
certainly seem to be suffering memory loss when it comes to the 
founding ideals of America.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom