Supreme Summer Break

Liberals, welcome to the Conservatives??? world.
We had to stomach so many activist rulings including Roe V. Wade.
Get used to it. Roberts is very young.

Sent by Sue | 2:12 PM | 7-2-2007

Can someone please explain the legal reasoning on the "bong hits for jesus" case. The ruling would make some sense if the student was on school grounds. But- and this is something some people have overlooked- he was not on school grounds. How can schools censor students when they are off campus?

Sent by Stacy | 2:15 PM | 7-2-2007

Would you agree that the very dramatic rightward slant of the Court was predicted and in some ways made possible by the way the 2000 disputed election was resolved by the Court? J. O'Conner is alleged to have stated that she wished Bush to win the recount, so she could retire and have a Republican president appoint her sucessor. So that explains her vote in Bush v. Gore. The bizarre way the recount dispute got to the Court, essentially with Scalia opining that continuing the recount would be unfair to Bush, and the very bizarre reasoning by which the right wing of the COurt resolved the recount issue in favor of Bush, allowed the election of Bush, and the appointment of - guess what!- the most conservative court members of my lifetime. So didn't that single case actually allow the COurt to direct its own ideological bent?

Sent by Susan Epstein | 2:24 PM | 7-2-2007

It seems to me that the decisions on the Louisville and Seattle cases are a mixed bag. On the one hand, it's bad because inequality in schools will increase since these programs can't continue. On the other hand, the new "proxies" that can be used instead of race (i.e. household income) will actually work more to reduce inequality than race. If you get poor kids (regardless of race) into better schools, that's a generally good thing which should go a long way to reduce disparities in "racial" achievements.

Sent by steve | 2:40 PM | 7-2-2007

I am a 1st grade teacher who does not believe in paying kids for good grades, however, I realize what a hypocrite I am when I "pay" my students for their good behavior with candy, stickers, pencils, etc.

Sent by Rory Burnham | 2:53 PM | 7-2-2007

The reason given for denying women the right to dilation-and-extraction abortion reflects an abusive mindset on the Supreme Court. The reason stated was that it's good to control women's choices because the women don't know how to make good choices as much as a certain male in power does. Abusers control people. They justify what they do. They don't recognize it as abuse when they override people's choices. They think it's good to do that. When the basis for opposing abortion is the view that the fetus is a human with rights, the thinking is to protect the fetus from abuse by the parent. Conservatives protect people's individual rights from infringement by others. This is legal. However, the view that adult women are less knowledgeable in how to make good choices indicates an abusive mindset is afoot in the Supreme Court. Abuse is illegal.

Sent by Irene | 3:20 PM | 7-2-2007

I received monetary reward for my grades when I was in school and it did make me work harder. That said, it was a nice reward, but it was by no means enough to, get a car or anything fo the sort as the earlier caller suggested. I think that comment goes to our societal view of entitlement. Kids today have a jaded view of what they should have and that comment just goes to cement that unrealistic view of what we should have.

Sent by Rob Pepe | 4:54 PM | 7-2-2007

Regarding the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case, the majority opinions argued that the banner was unfurled at a "school-sanctioned" event. Even though it was off-campus, they noted that students were given permission to attend, and there were teachers present. Because they considered the event school-sanctioned, they then concluded that the student was using speech to undermine the school's anti-drug policy, and that a school has the right to discipline students who undermine the policy.

Some of the concurring justices, though, did warn that the ruling should not be taken as an excuse to clamp down on all student speech, and that it focused specifically on drug-related speech. One hypothetical example they cited was a banner that instead read "wine sips 4 Jesus," which theoretically could be protected as religious speech, if done as a statement about communion. In contrast, Justice Thomas argued in his opinion that students have no First Amendment rights, period.

Sent by andy carvin | 4:55 PM | 7-2-2007

It's the law clerks that do all the research,then turn it into the so called justices,all the justices do,is to take that information and give an opinion,then they pass down that opinion,and that's supposed to be the law. The common people to whom these laws apply have no say,we're just supposed to be obedient and take orders
and the justices get their big fat pay checks

Sent by Joey McGillivary | 5:58 PM | 7-2-2007

If you want to know where the Supreme Court is going it's all in Strom Thurmond's Southern Manifesto. As explained in the book, The Strange Death of Liberal America, you will find in Thurmond's Manifesto the basic blueprint for the Court's--and the GOP's-- Counterrevolution.

Sent by martin | 7:59 PM | 7-3-2007