[xzins]

Obviously, the school disagrees with that lower court. I'm assuming that the SCOTUS saw something in the case that interested them, otherwise, they'd have simply affirmed the lower court ruling. (Not to indicate that they agree with the school board...they could have an entirely different interest.)

See #52.

On my part, however, the students are under someone's jurisdiciton at that time. They are involved in a school activity that involves moving the scholastic focus to a different location....that of the passing Olympic Torch. During that event, students unveiled a pro-drug banner and disobeyed a directive from the controlling authority.

They are entirely wrong. The principal is entirely right. .....So long as they stay away from a religious sensitivity argument, and focus on the disruption caused by the pro-drug message.

I'm not sure if they can introduce new arguments when it gets to the Supreme Court level, or if they can only improve on their original avenues of persuasion.

[green iguana]

I'm not sure if they can introduce new arguments when it gets to the Supreme Court level

They cannot. The facts of a case, when one reaches the SC, are as established by the lower courts. The SC rules on the previous ruling, not on the case itself. They can uphold the ruling, overturn it, or remand it back with clarifying instructions for the lower court.

[voltaires_zit]

> On my part, however, the students are under someone's
> jurisdiciton at that time. They are involved in a school
> activity that involves moving the scholastic focus to a
> different location....

The evidence indicated that the students were unsupervised, or at most very loosely supervised, during the activity. That students engaged in snowball fights, throwing of promotional beverages supplied by Coca-Cola, absented themselves entirely, and various other disorderly goings on.

> and focus on the disruption caused by the pro-drug message.

The court found there was no reasonable basis, at the time, to consider the banner "disruptive" in the context of the event.

I appreciate your point of view. The undermining of all lawful authority is a large source of the problems in current society. But I'm not nearly as confident as you regarding the reasons the Supremes took this case.

Reading through the files, it seems there are 3 competing, and on some level confusing, precedents controlling the decision. Maybe their goal is to simplify the existing mess, if they can.

[at bay]

focus on the disruption caused by the pro-drug message.

I must have missed that. Apart from the disruption the principal caused in destroying the student's property, what disruption did the banner cause? That inanimate objects, (bong hits) are "4" certain things?