I have just read the paper (USA Today) for the first time in a long time. I tend to do that while I’m traveling for business and eating breakfast. I’m glad I chose today to read the paper because there were several articles describing recent Supreme Court rulings.

Barriers eased on election ads

Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life; McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life

Ruling 5-4: A special interest group should have been allowed to air issue-oriented ads that mentioned a Wisconsin senator who was up for re-election dur the final two months before the 2004 elections.

The Vote: Majority were Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Alito. Dissenting were Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.

I don’t really know the details, so I defer my comments on the ruling until later. What is notable from this ruling is that Chief Justice Roberts stated in the decision

Where the first Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor. — Chief Justice John Roberts

Sounds good right? It’s like in baseball where, in a dispute whether a runner is safe on-base or out by a tag, the tie goes to the runner. OK, it’s not exactly the same but I tend to agree with the proactive parties getting credit for at least not being complacent and pushing the status quo. But wait… there’s more.

Ruling on Alaska banner case tightens limits on students’ speech rights

Morse v. Frederick

Ruling 5-4: The high court tightened limits on students’ speech rights by ruling against an Alaska student who had unfurled a 14-foot-long banner that read, “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” at a school event.

The Vote: Majority were Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Alito. Dissenting were Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.

Free speech for students below university level is always a touchy topic. I have long been under the assumption that courts tended to rule in-favor of severely limited rights to free speech while on-campus. USA Today paints a somewhat different picture such that courts tend to uphold students’ free-speech rights as long as they are not clearly disruptive or obviously lewd and inappropriate. I tend to agree that students should have all the rights on-campus they had off-campus. Instances of hacking and defacement, whether painting the school sculpture or placing pornography on library computer screens, are clearly disruptive and should not be protected by the First Amendment. Holding a banner that promotes illegal drug usage falls under the same heading to me, so I say the principal who tore down the student’s banner was in the right here. BUT! Chief Justice Roberts feels the same way I do! That moron! Remember, he said

Where the first Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor. — Chief Justice John Roberts

So this begs the question of whether his statement in the issue ads case was simply a cover-up for a favor to the rich Republican backers, or whether his ruling in the banner case is a picture of the poor convictions of our CHIEF JUSTICE.

In the end, my hope is for you and me both to keep our eyes on the rascals in our most influential offices. Those Justices are appointed for life. Our presidents appoint them. Our electoral college (who elects the president) is composed of our Congressional Representatives, who are elected by We the People. Get smart. I’m not smart yet, but my eyes are opening.