Bong Hits 4 Jesus

I actually just wanted to type that thread title. 

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

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

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

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











Otherwise, the banner would have read...










"Hookah Hits 4 Mohammed"

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."

You kill me. 

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

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.