Because I opened this site primarily as a meeting place for refugees of WotIsItGood4, and I'm not Lukery, I won't try to be your one-stop news shop. But there are some stories that get my dander up.
This is one. The republican conservative majority on the court opened a loophole on the restrictions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, then turned around and said no to an Alaska high school student's test of freedom of expression.
I won't excerpt the article, you can read it yourself and draw your own conclusions. It isn't long. The first case was brought by a group against legal abortion wanting to buy TV time before an election. The court said they should be able to do that. Both sides of that argument have valid concerns, and while the law didn't address what really ails elections, in theory, the judges decided to err on the side of freedom of expression, which sounds good. But now, you'll have those confusing, abusive "issue" ads before elections with partisan goals, clear or obscure, which is an open invitation to the world's Swift Boaters. We haven't heard the last of campaign reform.
The other case riles me. It should have never gone to any court, let alone the Supreme Court. It involves a student who was punished for putting up a banner that said "bong hits for Jesus." The court said the principal has the right to punish a student for language that endorses drug use.
Aside from the whole "protecting children" thing that couldn't be more annoying, think of what the ruling teaches young people. You can't say whatever you want. You will be censored and punished without due process. Didn't we all learn enough bad science, bad law and bad manners in school without an attack on freedom of expression? A better response to the banner would have been, "amen to that." I dislike the first decision and hate the second.
