Supreme Court spends yesterday ruining America
http://ffrf.org/news/2007/heinvFFRF.php
Taxpayers can't sue the executive when it uses taxpayer money to promote religion. For those playing at home, it means that nobody can. It's also likely that this means that the supreme court is stacked in such a way as to remove most judicial oversight over the executive.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0626/p01s01-uspo.html
McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform violates free speech somehow.
"Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."
That's funny, because the law doesn't say you can't discuss the issues, it says you have to disclose who payed to discuss the issues.
But wait...
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=63246
The Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 against Joseph Frederick, a former high school student from Juneau who unfurled a homemade "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner during the Olympic torch run through the city, on its way to Salt Lake City.
Didn't Roberts just say that the tie goes to the speaker in a 1st amendment case? Oh, not if the the person's speech is promoting something illegal! That makes perfect sense.
Justice Roberts: "The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," adding that the suspending principal "thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one."
Taxpayers can't sue the executive when it uses taxpayer money to promote religion. For those playing at home, it means that nobody can. It's also likely that this means that the supreme court is stacked in such a way as to remove most judicial oversight over the executive.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0626/p01s01-uspo.html
McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform violates free speech somehow.
"Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."
That's funny, because the law doesn't say you can't discuss the issues, it says you have to disclose who payed to discuss the issues.
But wait...
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=63246
The Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 against Joseph Frederick, a former high school student from Juneau who unfurled a homemade "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner during the Olympic torch run through the city, on its way to Salt Lake City.
Didn't Roberts just say that the tie goes to the speaker in a 1st amendment case? Oh, not if the the person's speech is promoting something illegal! That makes perfect sense.
Justice Roberts: "The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," adding that the suspending principal "thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one."