Posted on 03/05/2007 6:09:22 PM PST by markomalley
...With our new, improved, "Conservative" court...
...Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion must take a back seat to a person'e Freedom to be a Pervert.
Well, I can find Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion in the constitution. Afraid I can't find the latter so-called right.
'In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court agreed with a federal judge that Harper lost his ability to challenge the policy when he graduated last year.'
If the kid was still in school, the court might have sided with him.
All this does is take money from the school's budget. STUPID.
For your respective lists...
The school should be blamed for wasting resouces defending the policy. It establishes thoughtcrime and indoctrinates children in the religion of liberalism.
Too bad that Bill Clinton was allowed to raise BACK TAXES on dead people.
Seems the courts can decide that the day for justice has passed in some instances but not others.
I'd have more regard for "school policies" if attendance were not compulsory.
In reality, "a policy" is usually the same as "a whim"... seemingly arbitrary, unreasoned, and somewhat political in nature.
One should be free to opt out altogether where ever such policies exist, and to do so without penalty or strings attached.
The courts have their opinions in mind, they juse try to find excuses to arrive a the pre-ordained conclusion.
Hmmmm, T-shirt expressed an opinion without using foul or inappropriate language. (and "inappropriate" isn't exactly the greatest barometer here, either). 1st amendment wins.
apparently not.
There is a hidden set of problems here, none of which came up as an issue.
First of all, it is the school's prerogative to ban clothing that is "disruptive". But that brings up a conflict: is it inherently and *imminently* disruptive, or is it passively disruptive, that is, is whoever would be offended by it looking for an excuse?
In truth, this is unclear. For example, if many students have for years worn the confederate flag, it does not suddenly become "disruptive" because a black student decides that it is "hate speech". It is clearly not hate speech, because it has provoked no confrontation over the course of years.
However, if a student wears a t-shirt that says "Kill the Blacks", or words to that effect, it is clearly disruptive and intended, and can be expected, to create physical conflict, and in short order.
As far as other disruptions, the same article of clothing worn by a girl at the age of 10 may be quite unacceptable to be worn by her at the age of 16. And it can also be expected to create a disruption as soon as she enters school grounds. This clearly is an inherent and *imminent* threat of disruption, even though no hate speech is involved.
This article is misleading. The Court did not rule on the merits of the case. Instead this was a mootness issue. Since the guy already graduated, his issue was moot because a ruling on whether or not he could wear the shirt would have no effect since he is no longer enrolled in school there. Therefore, he had no standing to bring the suit. The Court didn't rule 8-1 against the shirt, they ruled 8-1 that his claim was moot.
Faggies rule!!!
(Yeah, right.)
):^(
Basically, the Supreme Court threw the whole thing out, because he was no longer a student and therefore lacked standing.
But notice that they also threw out the Ninth Circus's ruling as well, which backed the school's action. This was not a victory for the liberals.
I noted the same thing - the 9th Circuit's ruling was SET ASIDE, and thus (I assume) no longer viable as a precedent...
So, this isn't a ruling on the point of law; the SCOTUS is saying that the plaintiffs don't have standing to sue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.