COURT RULINGS PAINT PICTURE OF DEMAGOGUERY

There is a troubling pattern emerging on the Supreme Court which
should trigger consternation for citizens who value an open-minded
judiciary.

There have been a flood of decisions handed down by the stridently
right-leaning Roberts court that, in essence, open the door for
restrictions on speech, allow more government-sponsored support of
religion and gut the federal campaign finance law.

Last week, the court's five conservative justices -- Chief Justice
John G. Roberts Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Anthony M.
Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- took away the free
speech rights of students in the case involving the now-infamous but
nonsensical banner "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

Since a 1969 decision in another student speech case, the court has
held that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom
of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," but stopped short of
giving minors full-blown rights enjoyed by adults if it compromises
their safety or a school's ability to function properly.

Ignoring that precedent, Thomas said the 1969 decision "is without
basis in the Constitution" and, in his concurring opinion, he used his
own brand of judicial reasoning and insight that is firmly embedded in
the 19th century to make this statement:

"In my view, the history of public education suggests that the First
Amendment, as originally understood, does not protect student speech
in public schools."

In the other decisions, the same 5-4 split solidified the court's
standing as a conservative Republican rubber stamp. Just last month,
the court was one vote away from gutting the Clean Water Act in a suit
by a Minnesota developer who was blocked from filling in wetlands to
build a shopping mall.

And we trust most everyone by now has read the decision or at least
the reports on Kennedy's opinion upholding the ban on late-term
abortions that was written in the tone of a devout right-to-life
member rather than an objective judicial observer.

Split decisions on the court are neither new nor unexpected. According
to one study, the court has split 5-to-4 in roughly 21 percent of its
decisions in the last three years, not far off from the historical
percentage.

But many of those cases both recently and historically were decided
with centrist and literalist jurists, such as Sandra Day O'Connor or
Hugo Black, who brought with them open minds to all arguments.

It is the rigid ideology with which many of these new decisions are
being entered into the law that should give everyone pause. Rare is
the case with political overtones that even the most casual of
observers is unable to predict the fault line upon which the
conservative and liberal factions will vote.

As we get ready to select our next president, we would do well to look
at the appointments of those who held firm litmus tests on issues such
as abortion, religion and executive power.

Ask yourself, and then your candidate, do you want a court that is
ramrod straight on ideology, regardless of the side it leans on, or do
we want a branch of government that will look at 220 years of historic
precedent instead of throwing it out the window in favor of entrenched
demagoguery. We choose the latter.