"Bong Hits 4 Jesus"- U.S. Supremes take school censorship case from Juneau, Alaska
Mon, 2007-03-12 02:46
#1
"Bong Hits 4 Jesus"- U.S. Supremes take school censorship case from Juneau, Alaska
Mon, 2007-03-12 02:46
#2
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick]http://en.wikipedia.org/...
And you'll all be especially glad to know that Kenneth Starr is arguing the pro-school district, pro-censorship case.
They've gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to avoid admitting that the principal freaking overreacted to an innocent, if slightly tasteless, prank sign.
Mon, 2007-03-12 02:59
#3
Let me get this straight. This didn't happen on school grounds, and it didn't happen during school hours (since they were dismissed early), and he was suspended for it? And courts have been upholding this?
Great Lord Baby Jesus On A Bong.
Mon, 2007-03-12 04:23
#4
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled FOR the kid, which is why the school district appeal is before the Supremes.
And this whole stupid thing happened in MY HOME TOWN.
[ 12 March 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
Mon, 2007-03-12 08:54
#5
Does the Supreme court need to give reasons why it accepts or rejects a review?
Mon, 2007-03-12 09:23
#6
I don't think so, but I'm not positive about that.
Heh. How's that for legal advice from a non-lawyer? [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2007-03-12 10:04
#7
I think all courts have to explain their judgements, don't they?
Man, just more fascist assholes who seem to think that it should be against the law to embarrass them. I hope that kid sues them after he wins.
Mon, 2007-03-12 10:17
#8
Well, I can understand behavioural standards in schools. For instance, although swearing is not illegal, if you do it in class, you can be suspended. Fair enough - there are certain rules in school that are not laws of the land, but can be enforced at school.
But this kid wasn't at school. He was dismissed early and not on school property. I can't imagine how the school figures they have any right to interfere with a child's education because of something he does on his own time.
Mon, 2007-03-12 12:10
#9
The reason I ask is that I assume you need to prepare arguments for the Supreme Court in order for them to make a desicion whether to hear the case. Given that desicions are written, the dissentions are written, I figure there should be some record as to why the court would hear one case but not another.
And court case that lines up the the ACLU and the Christian Right and a whole plehtora of other groups in between against, essentially, the school board and the Department of Justice (run by Bush appointees... kinda like the Supreme Court, if you think about it).
edit: wrong cut and paste!
[ 12 March 2007: Message edited by: clockwork ]
Mon, 2007-03-12 23:07
#10
FYI, clockwork, the U.S. Supreme Court is under NO obligation to explain why it refuses to accept a particular case. In those cases, the court will simply state that it refuses a case "without comment".
I don't know if this is the same as in Canada or not.
Mon, 2007-03-12 23:29
#11
Neither do I, but I want to find out.
I also want to find out why why this particular aspect of the Supreme Court is opaque. This strikes me as... open to influence.. but also strikes me as a method to dodge topics better handled by the legislative branch...
I'm torn whether to be suspicious or not about this. And I'm kinda curious why I suspect the American judicial system of inadequacies
more than my own, to be quite frank.
Tue, 2007-03-13 18:24
#12
quote:
If the application is dismissed, a copy of the judgment will be sent to you by mail. The Court does not usually issue reasons for its decisions to allow or dismiss an application for leave.
[url=http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/faq/filing/index_e.asp]Supreme Court application for leave[/url]