GolfHos

I actually just wanted to type that thread title.  [sm_devil]

On a more serious note, the Supreme Court is hearing the free speech case:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17687386/

Got to love that Ken Starr is representing the school district for free AND advocating expansive power for schools to squelch any speech they don't deem in furtherance of the broadly self-defined educational mission.

This might be one of those cases where the Court bails on a technicality rather than issue a decision that will be unpopular with the citizenry.

where did the banner say what was in the bong to be hit?  [sm_devil]

2002? Saw that same slogan written on the sidewalk at Oklahoma State in Stillwater last week. I guess it takes things a long time to make it to Oklahoma.  :-\

CLEARLY the implication was made that it was full of decadent western dope.











Otherwise, the banner would have read...










"Hookah Hits 4 Mohammed"

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Waterpipe.jpeg/250px-Waterpipe.jpeg)

You crack me up dude!!!!  LMAO!!!

Didn't J.C. say" Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.  Give him a bong hit and he will eat anything."

No, but she said:

"Forget about tennis, I was scared to open my mouth. I didn't even feel worthy of saying something and not sounding stupid."    -- Jennifer Capriati

Perhaps she had Internet forums in mind ...  ;D

You kill me. 

So, if an 18 year old student goes off of school ground and joins a 'Support The Troops Rally', and the principal of that students school deems such an action inappropriate, the principal would have the right to suspend said student?

I'm thinking not so much....

The fact that this thing even made it this far is a sad commentary on the state of affairs in these here United States.

ORAL ARGUMENT TRANSCRIPT (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/06-278.pdf)

Got about five pages into that and had to bail.  I have a newfound respect for you.  Lawyers either have to listen to that sort of droll or produce it.  Either way, doing so without falling asleep is a lofty accomplishment. 

I have more interesting fights with my car radio.

 ;) ;D [sm_devil]

It can only be appreciated by a man who wears a glove, with six fingers on one hand.  Clive must be this man.

You're a better man that I for even trying to read it. I'll wait for the Reader's Digest version. 8)

Yeah, I read it.  I'm really surprised at Starr's performance: very choppy.  I know the justices routinely interrupt and ask some oddball, fact-changing hypotheticals, but geez.  He didn't seem to think well on his feet.

Scalia ignored factual disputes (e.g. whether it was a school event) and has already decided.  (The Olympic torch parade was heading through town.  The kid skipped school that day and unfurled a 14-foot banner saying "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" in the grass adjacent the sidewalk.  And also across the street from the school, that is -- the record says it was the only place he knew for sure the parade would pass, and that he didn't want to be near the school to begin with.  He "joined" school for the afternoon (Scalia makes a big deal out of this, concluding that the kid just joined an outdoor school assembly late), but only because the principal nabbed him as a truant, he submitted to her authority, and she took him into school.)

Roberts seemed pissed that the kid is suing the principal personally for money damages; the kid is arguing she can't hide behind the qualified immunity of her job because she should have known that she lacked legal authority for her actions.

The principal has a masters, which included a class on "school law" and specifically covered the very "Free Speech in the Schools" cases that were bandied about by the lawyers and Court.  She also had time to consult with the school district's counsel before imposing final punishment; a couple justices seemed to paint her as acting in the heat of the moment in order to give her more leeway.

The reasonableness of the school official's interpretation of the message seemed huge to some justices.  When pressed, however, the school's attorney conceded that such reasonableness was a matter of LAW, meaning the justices would owe no deference to the school official's interpretation.  That should have cut the heads off their arguments, as it was apparent that most justices did not find a pro-illegal-drug-use message in the banner.

Nice summary Clive!

I see a future in Aske-like pbp of Court TV in your future. ;)

I'm waiting for the judicial opinion that reads in relevant part:

HOLDING: *smite*