Bong Hits 4 Jesus No More

The Offending Sign

Today’s (black) headlines:

High court ends ban on corporate-funded campaign ads
Los Angeles Times, Calif.

Increasing the rights of corporations

Ordinary taxpayers can’t sue over faith-based program
Baltimore Sun, United States

Reducing the rights of citizens

Because the Constitution, evidently, should be proprietary.


Supreme Court Sides With EPA in Environmental Law Conflict.
The Congressional Quarterly

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled today that the Environmental Protection Agency can hand over to states the authority to issue water pollution permits, even if doing so appears to violate the Endangered Species Act.

(See above)


Conservatives go 4-4 today at the Supreme Court
Washington Post, United States

Legal and political conservatives hit for the cycle Monday morning when they “won” four long-awaited rulings from the United States Supreme Court

And, finally, limiting free speech (the student wasn’t at SCHOOL when the principal took offense to his sign and punished him for free speech) for citizens and sub-citizens:

Court limits student speech in ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ case
Houston Chronicle, United States

Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in a 5-4 ruling.

Joseph Frederick unfurled his homemade sign on a winter morning in 2002, as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

Frederick said the banner was a nonsensical message that he first saw on a snowboard. He intended the banner to proclaim his right to say anything at all.

His principal, Deborah Morse, said the phrase was a pro-drug message that had no place at a school-sanctioned event. Frederick denied that he was advocating for drug use.

“The message on Frederick’s banner is cryptic,” Roberts said. “But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one.”

Morse suspended the student, prompting a federal civil rights lawsuit.

The winning side in the case was quick to assert that the decision was not anti-free speech

Welcome back to 1984.

the article continues:

In their concurrence, Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy specified that the court’s opinion provides no support for any restriction on speech that goes to political or social issues.

It’s a narrow ruling that “should not be read more broadly,” said Kenneth Starr, whose law firm represented the school principal.

Ken Starr! Ken Starr?!?!?

Welcome back to “the rule of law” and the 1998-9 impeachment.

The Volokh Conspiracy blog reports that Justice Anthony Kennedy has been 16 for 16 in 5-4 decisions (the new “swing” vote).

Don’t know how today’s glut of abortions of justice adds or detracts from that total. (The EPA decision was 5-4 with Kennedy).

I thought they were against abortion?

Oh, hell, welcome back to 1984. Thank ghod the statue of Justice wears a blindfold, else we’d see the Goddess puking in every courthouse in the land. Rehnquist and Taney ought to be cleaning up their cell in hell. Looks like they’re due for plenty of company in the next few decades.

And there are FOUR MORE decisions forthcoming on abortion, segregation, the rights of defendants, and killing retards … er, the death penalty for the severely mentally ill.

Courage. (You’ll need it.)


© 2007 Hart Williams. Cross-posted from Zug - Hart Williams' Blog
The continuation of
Skiing Uphill and Boregasm, Zug is 'the little blog that could.'

877-851-6347 call congress toll free

Bookmark and Share

About Hart Williams

Mr. Williams grew up in Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas and New Mexico. He lived in Hollywood, California for many years. He has been published in The Washington Post, The Kansas City Star, The Santa Fe Sun, The Los Angeles Free Press, Oui Magazine, New West, and many, many more. A published novelist and a filmed screenwriter, Mr. Williams eschews the decadence of Hollywood for the simple, wholesome goodness of the plain, honest people of the land. He enjoys Luis Buñuel documentaries immensely.
Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Bong Hits 4 Jesus No More

  1. Darrell Prows says:

    For awhile after Reagan first appointed Kennedy my overall impression was that he was just stupid. Not Clarence Thomas stupid, but at least on the stupid end of the scale for Supremes. Then O’Connor seemed to take him under her wing and he moved way up in my esteem. Now he’s clearly back down in the stupid region.

    According to him they really didn’t decide anything in this case beyond the fact that one kid could get screwed by the powers that be. A Supreme Court case that does not make, if that’s true. Clearly Cert was improvidently granted and that would be a rather routine outcome to fall back on. So what are we doing here?

  2. Well, sad to say, unlike that OTHER stupid Washingtonian holding the reins of power, Kennedy really IS “The Decider” —

    In every 5-4 case on the court this session it looks like.

    He sure as hell seems the natural successor to Justice “Whizzer” White, doesn’t he?

    Meantime, if you would like to read a story almost as tortuously replete with unalloyed bullshit as the decision itself, read the mealy-mouthed “analysis” TIME Magazine just posted: “Ruling ‘Bong Hits’ Out of Bounds”

    Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?

  3. Darrell Prows says:

    There was a time when a bong hit in Alaska wouldn’t even be illegal, at least for an adult. Has that been changed, or was that inconvenient for the Court to deal with? Just the fact that there are a number of shades of illegal for pot seems like it creates political overtones that the Court should have been honest enough to at least acknowledge.

    As for Time, for it to find itself in lock step with Clarence Thomas should be really embarassing.

  4. Gee. “Bong hits” has NOTHING whatsoever to do with this case — except for the hallucination in the minds of the high school principal and the Supremes. But since the idée seems to be fixe:

    From the Seattle TIMES:

    Tuesday, July 11, 2006 – Page updated at 12:16 AM
    Judge rules against Alaska marijuana law

    The Associated Press

    JUNEAU, Alaska — A judge on Monday struck down part of a new Alaska law criminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, saying it conflicts with past constitutional decisions made by the Alaska Supreme Court.

    That means the police won’t be able charge people with a misdemeanor under the new law for possessing less than 1 ounce of marijuana in their homes.

    … Collins limited her decision to possession of less than 1 ounce of marijuana, even though the new law increases penalties for possession of more than that amount. Before the law took effect in June, it had been legal in Alaska to possess up to 4 ounces of the drug.

    The “recriminalization” appeal was refused by the appeals court.

    As for TIME being embarrassed: “Embarrassment” is not a recognized term in the TIME/LIFE lexicon. Manipulation to achieve management’s political ends, however, is. I have written during the last solstice about the shameful, 2-years-late “cover story” TIME ran on Herpes in the 1980s: “The New Scarlet Letter?”

  5. Darrell Prows says:

    Beautiful. Thanks.