SUPREME COURT RULINGS SHOW CONSERVATIVE BIAS

What Do Drugs, Jesus And The White House All Have In Common?

For conspiracy theorists the answer might be mind control. Or for
some of the President's critics it could be Bush's alleged cocaine
use and pandering to the religious right. But the answer is simply
that recent legal decisions involved all three.

The First Amendment came under attack Monday when the Supreme Court -
showing its new conservative leanings - ruled on two particular
cases: Morse v. Frederick and Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation.

On the first case, better known as the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, the
Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that schools have the right to censor student
speech, even if it is non-disruptive, if it can be "reasonably
regarded as encouraging illegal drug use."

Although high school student Joseph Frederick, who held up a banner
reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" across the street from his high school
while the 2002 Olympic torch relay passed by, claimed it was a
nonsensical phrase intended to grab media attention, the Court sided
with the principal who took down the banner and suspended Frederick.

Regardless of whether the banner actually supported or advocated
smoking marijuana, this decision to further limit student speech is
disasterous. Frederick was not on school property, was not disruptive
to the educational process and there is clearly no evidence this
sophomoric prank could or did incite imminent lawless action.
Therefore, this speech should be protected under the First Amendment.

This decision is going to have a chilling effect on students' rights
to free speech - especially when it may be about the injustices of
the war on drugs or protests for the legalization of marijuana. Like
this decision, the Supreme Court's ruling on Hein v. Freedom From
Religion Foundation, though narrow, also sets a dangerous precedent
on First Amendment constitutional law.

In another 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court barred taxpayers from being
able to sue the White House for alleged violations of the First
Amendment's establishment clause.

The plaintiffs, a group of atheists and agnostics from the Freedom
From Religion Foundation, brought the lawsuit against Jay Hein,
director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives, objecting to the use of their federal tax dollars to
fund the religious activities of the White House.

The Court dismissed the suit on the grounds that existing precedent
only allowed such legal action in challenges against Congressional
appropriations for religious groups. This precedent, the 1968 ruling
of Flast v. Cohen, created an exception to the rule that barred
taxpayers from suing the government based on the legality of spending
decisions since taxpayers can not suffer any tangible injury.

The exception allows for suits to be brought against the government
that challenge spending in support of religion. Without this
exception, the establishment clause would be rendered merely advisory
regarding government spending on religion.

But the Court ruled this exception does not apply to the executive
branch and, in throwing it out, has essentially shielded the White
House from any legal challenges from ordinary taxpaying citizens that
allege a violation of the separation of church and state. This gives
the President, the White House and the entire federal bureaucracy a
carte blanche to promote religion.

Justice Samuel Alito attempted to reassure citizens this situation
was not a threat when he wrote in the majority opinion that "in the
unlikely event that any of these executive actions did take place,
Congress could quickly step in."

But the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United
for Separation of Church and State, told the Associated Press he
found Alito's statement that Congress could step in "quite incredible
because the damage is done when the president acts." Lynn said
Congress is not able to anticipate the actions of the executive
branch that could potentially violate the establishment clause. "We
have the courts to do precisely this, rein in the president or the
Congress," Lynn told the AP.

Although the executive branch can no longer be sued for alleged
violations of the separation of church and state, most church-state
lawsuits are not affected by this ruling. Since the ruling upheld the
exception created by Flast v. Cohen, taxpayers can still sue Congress
for appropriations for religious activities and groups on the grounds
of establishment cause violations.

Nonetheless, the ideals of the First Amendment have been seriously
weakened following the Supreme Court's decisions on these two cases.
Perhaps it is the Supreme Court that has been taking bong hits. They
certainly seem to be suffering memory loss when it comes to the
founding ideals of America.