"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823)
Step One
16 comments:
Coupled with the other ruling and reading between the lines I see these rulings as protecting the free speech of fat cat big shots (which I am all for) yet stifling that of the hooka huffing carpenters (which I am not)
Cant say that I am entirely happy with this inconsistency and blatant Constitutional favortism.
As Rasputin once said..... drink bong water.
roberts' reasoning in the bong hits 4 jesus case is utterly ridiculous--it's clear he had already made up his mind before giving any serious legal thought to the case.
it's dangerous because he ascribes so much meaning to four words of virtual nonsense and one could make the exact opposite argument by using his exact line of reasoning.
you guys don't like judicial activism? then in this instance, you shouldn't like john roberts. he just set the precedent that the supreme court can make decisions based upon what they think you were thinking. scary.
As I said I do find it troubling and fear that going forward any hot topic they dont
a) understand
b) have the balls to address
c) all of the above
will be deemed as "cryptically" disruptive and left unprotected and censored. This was a tough case for me and I find myself going back and forth on it, but ultimately disagree with the ruling and yes, Roberts reasoning.
How things have changed. I kid you not, back in the day when I ran for Student Council President my slogan was the not so cryptic and assuredly assumptive.
Victory Kegger at Donkeyhue's
That being said, I fully support the smackdown SCOTUS gave to the atheists.
you would support it... just out of spite, i have a feeling.
constitutionality aside... the churches have ZERO accountability for how they spend the money. it's a huge fraud being perpetrated on american taxpayers and you should be against it as a conservative.
but i suppose it's not runaway spending if it's the GOP doing it, eh?
That is where you are wrong, I am obviously against frivolous federal spending and without question that is an area where this administration has failed. I can think of significantly worse offenders, but that is no excuse. Accountability and transparency must be the norm in ALL welfare cases.
However I do not single out the church as the atheists have done in this case as the sole recipient of this largesse, nor do I think that the Constitution forbids financial aid of any kind to "da church"
This was yet another baseless attack on religion and I for one as a anti-deist American am happy that it failed.
Funding a womens shelter or a soup line clearly does not establish a state religion nor does it show any particular preference as can be witnessed by the existence of the pagan NEA.
On a more positive note..... big hit by the jew last night, you people should be proud.
How could you disagree with roberts on the "bong hits" thing?
You're saying the first ammendment says you should be allowed to promote bong hits at a school event with a big banner?
What if they wanted to promote killing jews or hanging niggers, or raping children?
sure the killing jews thing wouldn't be a big deal but it's still illegal! so why should the school have to allow someone to have such a banner at their event? I don't think that's what the first ammendment was about, and in fact that's the point of the Jefferson quote.
"the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text"
So what is that you have a problem with Rhino...
Bong hits or Jesus?
... or bong hits for Jesus.
The legality of whether or not he was even on "school property" aside, where does it end? The banner was obviously a goof.
I never saw the movie becuase I dont watch science fiction, but are you suggesting the censorship of Schindlers List because it address the killing of jews?
You know the Moslems have been getting all bent out of shape over banners cartoons slogans lately too.
Thats some company you keep.
To you, the Supreme Court and the rest of the pansy assed pc populace.....
LIGHTEN UP
No seriously pack a bong and lighten up.
The problem i have is not pc. It's common decency.
Where do you draw the line? Is there no line? Pictures of naked children would just be a gag to you?
Punk ass kid got suspended for not taking the banner down. Good. He sued because he's a bitch, he lost because we have less hippies on the court now! Fuck that kid!
Grasping for straws huh? Thats just a stupid argument. Youre sounding like a liberal without a leg to stand on that has to resort to moral highgroundery. Oh the children, must protect the children from kiddie porn.
No doubt the kid is a punk and should have taken his suspension like a man, but the litigiousness of our society is a discussion for another day.
But what troubles me is the inconsistency of the ruling not to mention the apparent bias. My guess is that if the banner read Bong Hits For Kublai Khan the ruling may have been different, then again dont think for a moment that the all powerful textile lobby and DuPont family didnt have a hand in this (once again a discussion for another day)ruling as well.
Seems that the same type that applaud this ruling are the same (present company included) that think the radical Moslems rioting about cartoons are jackasses. Bit hypocritical dont ya think?
As much as I may not like it, the First Amendment protects punk kids and hippies too, its just a shame that such an important issue was decided on a silly slogan that obviously clouded the crux of the biscuit.
Not to mention the fact that anyone that has purchased a bong in the past ten years knows that the sticker states CLEARLY that said product is for novelty purpose and incense burning only (so Ive read)
No straw grasping here, you're the one guessing about shit.
Here's the deal.
The authorities told him to take down the sign. They are in charge, he is a punk kid. They didn't deem the sign appropriate for a school event. that's it, end of story.
You're the one grasping for straws. The kid got punished for inappropriate behavior and that's it. That has nothing in common with the mohammed cartoons.
If the sign was in a newspaper or displayed on the kids front lawn i would think it was tasteless (much like your denim jacket with the pot leaf on it) but i would defend his right to keep his banner up.
He was at a school function, the authority at the school function is the principal. The principal told him to remove the banner and he refused. That's the end of the story.
As we have discussed here at The Aurora ad nauseum, the "school principle" by and large are morons and certainly not the final law of the land.
What if he was asked to take off a crucifix necklace or a pro-choice t-shirt would you feel the same. I believe I recall both you and I being in opposition to such discrimitory practices such as the persecution of Simpsons fans in the eighties had to endure.
What the hell have bong hits for Jesus ever done to hurt anybody I ask you. Your membership in the cultlike Straight Edge is causing you to be biased on this.
...and for the last frigging time, my denim jacket is strictly for medicinal purposes.
the crucifix is not the same thing but the t-shirt might be.
The banner was there for a purpose. That purpose was to be disruptive at a school sponsored event. The purpose was acheived and the punishment followed.
Should there be no consequences?
The principle may indeed be a jackass and most likely he or she is, but he is still the ruling authority at the event.
You can't yell "bomb" on an airplane because it is disruptive. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater because it is disruptive, and you can't put a banner up at the school event that says "bong hits for Jesus" because it is disruptive. If you are asked to take it down and you don't you will be punished.
oh and one more thing...go fuck yourself!
First you compare bong hits for jesus (bhfj going forward) to kiddie porn then tell me its nothing like being asked to remove a crucifix as many students and teachers have been asked to do (for being disruptive), and now youre telling me its like screaming bomb and fire in public spaces. How convenient, not consistent, but convienent. Causing a public nuissance protected, causing a public threat not protected. Got it?
If you cant differentiate between the similiarities and differences then you sir are a grade a jackass.
You know what the problem with your argument is? It cant hold its mud.
Lunatic fringe, I know youre out there. Youre in hiding, and you hold your meetings. We can hear you coming. We know what youre after. Were wise to you this time. We wont let you kill the laughter.
That's correct, it's nothing like being asked to remove a crucifix.
a person who wears a cross around their neck isn't doing it to create a problem. If someone is offended by it that's their problem and they can go fuck themselves.
The punk kid with the banner was trying to create a problem, a disturbance etc. That was his intent.
but its like kiddie porn?
I didnt realize that peacefully displaying a banner with no violent connotations was considered to be causing a disturbence.
So are you saying that I should stop playing Wu-Tang on my boombox during introductions at the Annual Nantucket Horseshoe Championship?
Because as you may very well know, like my brethren from Shaolin, I plan to....
Bring The Motherfuckin' Ruckus
Post a Comment