COURTING INDEPENDENCE

Well, like it or not, checks and balances are here to stay, for now.

A rash of close decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court is driving home
the significance of the judiciary as President Bush continues to
flounder in his last two years in office and Congress fails to gain
any traction (or public support), despite its overhaul after the 2006
elections.

Much of our society -- a woman's ability to exercise the same rights
as a man, the balance between free enterprise and opportunity for
labor, freedom of speech, to name just a small slice -- hangs on the
precipice between this court's conservative majority and its more
liberal minority. But those who bemoan the court's new makeup as just
another cog in the machine of a vast right-wing conspiracy miss the point.

The strength of the judiciary as an independent body has never been
more clear. As concerning as some recent decisions have been, the
Supreme Court continues to prove that the constitution is a living
document, even if some of those conservative justices might argue otherwise.

This is the ebb and flow of our democracy. Perhaps one day soon
enough we will elect a congress, a president, and state governments
capable enough to govern effectively. Perhaps one day we will be able
to turn on C-SPAN and watch rousing debates free of political
machinations, debates that inspire, debates that the populace
actually wants to switch off "American Idol" to watch. Perhaps one
day voting for our leaders will electrify the public more than voting
for our favorite pop star, and the decisions those leaders make will
not be second-guessed in the courtroom. Until that day, however, we
must take the good with the bad and welcome the fact that we can
still second-guess in this country.

Still, even some Supreme Court cases are worth second-guessing. As
Independence Day approaches, we should be particularly concerned
about the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," Case. On June 25, the court ruled in a
6-3 margin that a principal in Alaska did not violate Joseph
Frederick's rights when she suspended him for 10 days for displaying
the banner at a school event welcoming the Olympic Torch as it passed
through Juneau in 2002. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John
Roberts said that the principal was not liable for violating
Frederick's free speech rights because it was reasonable to act to
decide the banner promoted illegal drug use and that schools had the
right to limit expression that contribute to "the dangers of illegal drug use."

It is troubling to assume that at their most formative years students
shouldn't be granted the same rights they will be afforded as adults,
particularly when they are expected to learn about and cherish those
rights in school.

Yes, illegal drug use carries serious dangers, but speaking about
dangerous actions cannot be considered a punishable offense, even
among children.

On July 4, 231 years ago, what more dangerous expression was there
than to declare independence from an empire and launch a war to
establish a new country?