Breaking: SCOTUS rocks McCain-Feingold, protects faith-based initiatives, says schools can censor “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”; Update: Dry cleaner wins $54 million “pants” suit
posted at 10:25 am on June 25, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The “Bong Hits” decision is just across on Fox. Stand by for details. Bush just won on faith-based initiatives, too.
Update: Who cares about the Supreme Court? The “pants” case is decided!
A judge on Monday ruled in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants in a case that garnered international attention and renewed calls for litigation reform.
District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the Korean immigrant owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city’s Consumer Protection Act by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson’s expectations of the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign that was once placed in the store window.
“Plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr. takes nothing from the defendants, and defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung are awarded the costs of this action against the plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr.,” the ruling read.
As most of you probably know but some may not, judges typically only order one party to pay the other’s costs if they consider the suit especially frivolous. Not a tough call here, particularly given that Pearson’s a judge himself.
Update: It’s the end of the term so SCOTUS rulings will be flying fast and furious this week. The latest has earned the coveted Drudge siren: “Justices strike down key campaign finance reform provision.”
A majority of the Supreme Court’s conservative bench Monday swept aside part of a campaign finance reform law dealing with “issue ads,” an important free speech dispute gaining attention as the presidential election campaign gains unusually early traction.
The ruling could mean a greater role in Campaign 2008 for advocacy groups, corporations and labor unions, which air the commercials in the frenetic weeks before voters go the polls.
Update: Between the election case, the “Bong Hits” ruling and the faith-based initiatives decision, you’ve got three distinctly conservative holdings coming down today and all of them written by Bush appointees. Roberts wrote the opinions in the McCain-Feingold and “Bong Hits” cases and Alito, it turns out, did the honors in the initiatives case. The media storyline, obviously, is going to be that the “Bush Court” has finally emerged. There’s truth to that, but please note: all three decisions went 5-4, with Anthony Kennedy presumably having cast the deciding vote in each. (I’ll check on that.) Is AK coming back into the fold?
Update: Kennedy was indeed in the majority in each case but that majority was fractured, with various concurrences, in all but the “Bong Hits” case. Breyer concurred in the judgment but dissented in part in “Bong Hits” as well. Otherwise the liberals were united.
Update: Lyle Denniston at SCOTUS Blog has short summaries of the decisions here as well as PDF versions of the “Bong Hits,” McCain-Feingold, and faith-based decisions. The upshot of the “Bong Hits” case is that of course kids have the right to joke around in school, so long as they’re not joking about drugs. Off to skim; back in a few.
Update: Not done skimming yet but it’s probably not going to get more surreal than John Roberts dissecting the term “bong hits”:
At least two interpretations of the words on the banner demonstrate that the sign advocated the use of illegal drugs. First, the phrase could be interpreted as an imperative: [Take] bong hits . . . — a message equivalent, as Morse explained in her declaration, to smoke marijuana or use an illegal drug. Alternatively, the phrase could be viewed as celebrating drug use — bong hits [are a good thing], or [we take] bong hits — and we discern no meaningful distinction between celebrating illegal drug use in the midst of fellow students and outright advocacy or promotion…
The pro-drug interpretation of the banner gains further plausibility given the paucity of alternative meanings the banner might bear. The best Frederick can come up with is that the banner is meaningless and funny… The dissent similarly refers to the signs message as ”curious,”… ”nonsense,”… ”ridiculous,”… ”obscure,”… “silly,”… ”quixotic,”… and ”stupid,”… Gibberish is surely a possible interpretation of the words on the banner, but it is not the only one, and dismissing the banner as meaningless ignores its undeniable reference to illegal drugs.
So essentially, this very important case hinges on how seriously the message can be taken as an incitement to smoke bowls. The test is whether the speech “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school,” which it apparently does because, per Roberts, dissuading kids from using drugs is an important state interest. It’s the drug reference that’s the key; he goes on to say that the offensiveness of the reference to Jesus isn’t enough to make the speech bannable. Presumably, “Hard Liquor 4 Jesus (If You’re Over 21)” would be okay.
Update: Actually, no, as far as Stevens’s dissent’s concerned, it doesn’t turn on drug use.
It is also perfectly clear that promoting illegal drug use … comes nowhere close to proscribable incitement to imminent lawless action... Encouraging drug use might well increase the likelihood that a listener will try an illegal drug, but that hardly justifies censorship…
No one seriously maintains that drug advocacy (much less Frederick’s ridiculous sign) comes within the vanishingly small category of speech that can be prohibited because of its feared consequences. Such advocacy, to borrow from Justice Holmes, ha[s] no chance of starting a present conflagration.
Basically they want schools bound by the same rules government is bound by vis-a-vis adults. He goes on to say, for the sake of argument, that perhaps schools should be allowed a bit more leeway than that when it comes to speech that advocates drug use, but the sign wasn’t clearly advocating drug use here. But for the word “Do” before the word “Bong,” alas, we might have had a 9-0 decision. (Hint: we wouldn’t have.)
Update: I’m not going to comment on the campaign-finance case since that sort of law’s too specialized, but note well this passage from the AP story about it:
The majority itself was divided in how far justices were willing to go in allowing issue ads.
Three justices, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, would have overruled the court’s 2003 decision upholding the constitutionality of the provision.
Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito said only that the Wisconsin group’s ads are not the equivalent of explicit campaign ads and are not covered by the court’s 2003 decision.
In other words, the provision of McCain-Feingold that bans campaign ads close to the election has not been deemed unconstitutional. Not yet, anyway, but no doubt this decision is going to encourage some plaintiff to try to force Roberts and Alito to address that issue squarely and strike the provision down.
Ben Smith wonders if the decision will end up helping Democrats and hurting Republicans.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Also just across Fox: Pants judge loses, forced to pay court costs.
Slublog on June 25, 2007 at 10:28 AM
I think it’s a question of local law whether attorney’s fees are included in costs. The award of costs may be less than it sounds like. I defer to people who actually know DC law.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on June 25, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Is Pearson insured? I don’t think he has enough money to reimburse the Chungs (and possibly their insurance company) for the costs. But for the fact that he caused the Chungs so much grief, I would almost feel sorry for Pearson, in that I believe he is mentally ill. He’s going to lose his job, he’s made a fool of himself, and I would be surprised if he didn’t lose his license to practice law, too.
Blake on June 25, 2007 at 10:44 AM
They should pants the dickhead judge who brought the suit.
Jaibones on June 25, 2007 at 10:44 AM
That guy is such a douche!
AlexB on June 25, 2007 at 10:47 AM
re pantsuit or is that pants suit?
My only question is how in the world did the judge let it go so far? It was obvious it was a frivolous lawsuit from the outset. Summary judgment should have taken care of it in the early stages. Instead, the judge lets the plaintiff make a mockery of justice and gives the benefit of fact to what should have been dismissed as a matter of law.
Tennman on June 25, 2007 at 10:51 AM
I love this SCOTUS.
fusionaddict on June 25, 2007 at 10:52 AM
I’m not familiar with the facts of this case and I’m not licensed in DC (I’m a lawyer in Ohio), so you should appropriately discount my opinion here– but, typically, awards of “costs” do not include attorney’s fees and most litigation expenses. That typically refers to things like filing fees, court reporter fees, and other related administrative costs. The total probably won’t amount to more than $1,000-$2,000. Typically, courts DO impose the court costs on the losing party.
Outlander on June 25, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Are those Koreans legal?
tomas on June 25, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Sometimes I agree, but…Hamdan?
ReubenJCogburn on June 25, 2007 at 10:57 AM
I don’t feel sorry for him… this is another case where lawyers are taking advantage of and hijacking our judicial system to make a few bucks. I can see why so many other countries laugh at us, we are a sue happy nation, that will file suit against anyone for the most stupidest things… The majority of which someone lacks common sense and ends up hurting themselves (McDonald’s coffee case), so they sue someone else for their own stupidity.
I only wish this case would show that we can’t just go and sue someone just because we are down on our luck and need a way out.
I’m very happy the Chungs won this case and hope the can get on with their life and their business can recoup. I also hope the “judge” gets slapped with a big fine for this frivolous case.
ThinkingForMyself on June 25, 2007 at 10:58 AM
As an expat living in Korea, I can tell you this has made the news in South Korea. Glad to see this thrown out.
uskorea on June 25, 2007 at 11:00 AM
This case should have been thrown out months ago by the ’seat of its pants’.
Dis-bar Pearson and serve up a healthy plate of Tort reform!
dandy on June 25, 2007 at 11:01 AM
“Bong hits 4 jesus”
ehhhh I’m more of a “What Would Jesus Brew?” kinda guy
libertytexan on June 25, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Read the facts of the McDonald’s coffee case sometime and see how badly the plaintiff was injured. It wasn’t a case of a little owie. This case got a bad rep because of the subject matter.
Tennman on June 25, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Let’s hope that this is the beginning of the end of McCain Feingold.
calnevari on June 25, 2007 at 11:11 AM
And John McCain’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad month continues.
Slublog on June 25, 2007 at 11:13 AM
When a government starts confiscating money from its citizens to finance whichever religion that government deems worthy, be very afraid. Money goes a long way toward establishing certain ‘government approved’ organizations.
Just say NO to faith based initiatives.
locomotivebreath1901 on June 25, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Just as an aside, if you want to read about the real facts of the McDonald’s case, you can see that it doesn’t even come close to the fact scenario in this pants case.
Tennman on June 25, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Let me edit my quite long comment to just say: here’s hoping!
Spirit of 1776 on June 25, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Yeah, I agree with loco, Faith-based initiatives are not good, state shouldn’t be doing that, it creates a favored status and may make churches alter themselves to government demands.
Bad Candy on June 25, 2007 at 11:23 AM
The “pants” case I’m hoping was a no-brainer but sometimes these caes go in crazy directions.
As for the “campaign reform” case, good news indeed.
Yakko77 on June 25, 2007 at 11:24 AM
All good decisions by SCOTUS, the conservative base should be pleased. I’m not sure about how close the other decisions were but Morse v. Frederick (Bong Hits 4 Jesus)was a 5-4 decision.
Maxx on June 25, 2007 at 11:24 AM
The decision on campaign finance is huge!
Darksean on June 25, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Wow! It’s turning out to be a very good Monday. How long before McCain’s head explodes?
conservnut on June 25, 2007 at 11:26 AM
You are ignoring the “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” part of the Constitution. Religious organizations have a fantastic track record for accomplishing good things at a low cost. Why should they be excluded from federal money just because they are religious? Why exclude money from those who have a proven track record of doing the job of charity best?
Maxx on June 25, 2007 at 11:34 AM
This “might” be true. However, if SCOTUS (and FDR) HADN’T swayed the court to allow the Senate to “confiscate AND SPEND” our money, none of this would be possible.
HarryStar on June 25, 2007 at 11:35 AM
I like this in FEC v Wisconsin Right to Life:
Emphasis in original.
This puts the focus where it should be - it’s not up to us to prove that our speech is constitutional - it’s up to the government to prove it’s not, and judging from the language here, it’s going to be tough for the government to do that in most cases.
Slublog on June 25, 2007 at 11:35 AM
And hospitals! And schools!
Because the government does those things so well all by itself.
Pablo on June 25, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Another political blow to anyone attached to McCain/Feingold suppression of free speech act.
csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Uh…that was the diff. in this case. It was done by executive order and not Congressional act, meaning that there was no taxpayer standing to challenge the appropriation. Taxpayer standing is VERY limited–it appears ONLY in regard to that money which Congress itself authorizes for uses violating the Establishment Clause. They merely, in this case, maintained the status quo as set in Flast v. Cohen.
The aftermath of the Bong Hits case is probably going to suck, btw. Just warnin’ ya.
E. M. on June 25, 2007 at 11:38 AM
On the one hand, federal monies should be equally available to faith-based organizations as they are to secular ones.
On the other hand, why are conservatives supporting government handouts, no matter who they go to? I’d be more worried that bellying up to the federal trough will do for Jesus what it did for education.
rho on June 25, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Maybe he finally got around to actually reading that Constitution thing.
For the record, no pair of pants is worth $54 million. Not even if Jessica Alba is in them at the time.
ReubenJCogburn on June 25, 2007 at 11:41 AM
And on the other side, here’s Souter, citing polls in his dissent:
In fact, Souter spends pages of the dissent decrying the “electoral influence of accumulated wealth.”
Slublog on June 25, 2007 at 11:42 AM
The 1968 decision involved the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which financed teaching and instructional materials in religious schools in low-income areas.
“This case falls outside” the narrow exception allowing such cases to proceed, Alito wrote.
Could this ruling open the door for Fundamental Islamists to run Madrasas. Are there any restrictions on the religion provision. I know the Rastafarians would like to buy some ganja to be used for worship. /
sonnyspats1 on June 25, 2007 at 11:42 AM
RushBaby on June 25, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Yikes. Souter’s dissent is actually pretty scary if you read into it. He seems to be essentially arguing that because Wisconsin Right to Life “made no secret of its views about who should win the election” in other political speech, their political speech in this specific case should be censored.
He’s basing part of his dissent on circumstances surrounding the election and not on the ads or law.
Slublog on June 25, 2007 at 11:45 AM
The aftermath of the Bong Hits case is probably going to suck, btw. Just warnin’ ya.
E. M. on June 25, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Mabey,mabey not. I wonder if it is a wise decision that could be used to curtail demonstrators who promote the beheading of unbeleivers and such things on their posters.
sonnyspats1 on June 25, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Not only that, McDonald’s was on notice that their coffee was too hot and injuring people, the coffee was so hot it caused the cup to collapse in on itself and spill on the poor lady’s lap, and the amount she asked for was a minimal amount — something under 30k, if I remember correctly, for five days in the hospital, alot of pain, and a lot of skin grafts, and McDonald’s told her to take a hike.
Blake on June 25, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Regarding the Bong Hits decision, apparently the sign would have been fine had they said “Legalize Bong Hits 4 Jesus,” transforming the sign from pure silliness promoting drug use into a political and religious statement.
EconomicNeocon on June 25, 2007 at 11:48 AM
I’m not ignoring ‘the free exercise thereof’, but keep govt. money, redtape, and strings out of it. Do you really want govt. deciding which religions are worthy? 600 years of bloody european history taught the people who founded this nation a great big lesson about officially mixing govt. power & religion. Let us not condemn ourselves by tainting unfettered churches with government money & over-site.
locomotivebreath1901 on June 25, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Who’d a thunk the “Supremes” would release a new hit in 2007?……..
Perhaps the cards are falling for Mc/Feingold….
Nelsa on June 25, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Found this paragraph in the “Bong hits 4 Jesus” story kind of funny:
Slublog on June 25, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Amen!
locomotivebreath1901 on June 25, 2007 at 11:53 AM
There’s some funny theories out there: like this one about the last super bread being a psychedelic mushroom - http://psychedelics.com/psilocybe/holyjesus.html
deesine on June 25, 2007 at 11:58 AM
From the reference to the real facts of the Coffee Klutz case:
That’s all I need to know. Judgment for Defendant.
Frankly, the Judge had a much better case regarding the drycleaner’s promise of “Satisfaction guaranteed.” The only problem I see is that the Judge’s case is probably worth at max only the cost of the dry cleaning, assuming it had been paid.
EconomicNeocon on June 25, 2007 at 11:59 AM
0_o What the heck?! 54$ MILLION for one freaking lost pair of pants? Did he have plutonium in his pockets or something?
Talk about a frivolous lawsuit. He should be banned from the bench - anyone who makes such a ridiculous case themselves has no right to judge others’ violations of the law.
Dark-Star on June 25, 2007 at 12:04 PM
I understand your point, but my initial warning still holds true whether the money is appropriated via executive fiat or congessional legislation - “Money goes a long way toward establishing certain ‘government approved’ organizations”, and I do not want this government exercising that type of power when it comes to religion - any religion.
A better solution would be to treturn the tax money to the people who earned it and let them decide which private charity organizations are worthy of the donations.
Govt. = FUBAR
locomotivebreath1901 on June 25, 2007 at 12:05 PM
damn straight
libertytexan on June 25, 2007 at 12:10 PM
If the feds are going to hand out money to organizations to combat social ills…. which they should not be doing in the first place, then they should not exclude religious organization simply because they are religious. To do so is a decision by government that all religion is bad and unworthy. The government should have never got into the business of charity in the first place… but since they are… un-Constitutional as I believe it is…. then handing out money should be based on who has the best track record for overcoming social ills at the least cost. That is ALL it should be based on. And religious organizations clearly have superior track records for combating social ills at low cost, especially when compared with government programs.
I am for government getting out of the charity business altogether, its not their job, but if the money is going to be distributed then religious organizations should have equal opportunity at federal grants.
Maxx on June 25, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Which is a good thing it went to jury trial and not the court of public opinion. The facts included real injury and a defendant who knew 700 times previously that real injury could occur by serving coffee at a temperature that could give third-degree burns.
The jury, BTW, did mitigate her damages by 20 percent due to her own negligence.
Tennman on June 25, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Awww…poor John McCain.
SouthernGent on June 25, 2007 at 12:21 PM
I’m glad to here that the dry cleaner people won, that judge was a putz and a half.
Chuck in Detroit on June 25, 2007 at 12:21 PM
In fairness justice Roberts had to recuse himself on Hamadan because he had passed judgement against it as a lower court judge.
If it comes up again not sure the issue will get passed
William Amos on June 25, 2007 at 12:40 PM
The scary thing is that there are 4 Justices that believe it is oO to censor political arguement, but it is not OK to censor the promotion of an illegal drug in a school setting. That is liberalism for you.
pat on June 25, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Anyone remember if that South Dakota abortion ban has hit the SCOTUS yet? Or are they waiting until another liberal justice retires?
HYTEAndy on June 25, 2007 at 12:49 PM
I don’t believe so. The decision was narrowly and carefully written, the application limited to the influence on a school’s ability to conduct its mission. All this decision effectively accomplishes is to reinforce that a public school has some authority to determine if a form of speech is counterproductive while within its jurisdiction.
locomotivebreath, you are exactly right in theory that the federal government should not be in the business of charity in any manner or form. However, in practice, and due to previous POTUS decisions, that is exactly what has been happening for many years. Since publicly confiscated tax money IS in fact used for charity, the federal government should not exclude faith-based organizations from the channels of distribution.
While it is proper to be concerned about the ’strings’ which government might attempt to attach to faith-based organizations based on money, I believe that the law President Bush signed did a fair job of keeping the fed’s claws out of the charity organizations’ religious freedom.
Freelancer on June 25, 2007 at 12:56 PM
That’s a fair point, and I’d forgotten about Roberts having to recuse himself. And don’t get me wrong, generally I have been happy with most of this SCOTUS’ decisions, although it’s ridiculous how close some of the splits have been. But that’s what happens when you have liberal activist judges consulting their navels and basing decisions on what feels good.
ReubenJCogburn on June 25, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Stupid decision on Bong Hits 4 Jesus. (Predict this phrase will become a very popular fashion accoutrement). Good decision on McCain-Feingold, but that outrageous law should be thrown out in its entirety.
The 1st amendment is not hard to understand. These decisions should be 9-0 for free speech.
Rico on June 25, 2007 at 1:11 PM
The biggest problem I have with the Bong Hits case is that the school tried to assert authority over actions outside of school (not even where a field trip produces a ‘bubble’ of school authority to surround the students and faculty involved in the off-campus activity).
—
“Mabey,mabey not”
Please stop giving educated leftists an excuse to write off their opponents as ignorant rednecks. It’s spelled “maybe”, as in “may be”.
Or: “It may be dyslexia, but in that case, shouldn’t the letters occasionally be in the right order?”
The Monster on June 25, 2007 at 1:14 PM
LOL, an herbally-induced declaration if ever I’ve heard one.
infidel4life on June 25, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Tennman,
I am very well aware of the McDonalds case and as a criminal justice/law student I still feel that the woman was responsible for her own actions (this being my opinion)
The woman put the scalding hot coffee cup between her legs where when she, on her own, opened the cup and spilled the coffee on her legs causing severe burns because she was wearing sweat pants that held the hot liquid against her skin thus causing further and more severe burns. (if you get a cup of coffee from any establishment, you can feel the heat through the container, any reasonable person would know that it may cause bodily injury if you open it the way she did).
Anyone with any kind of common sense will know that coffee served from fast food and other restaurants are very very hot and you know enough NOT to sip from it straight from the coffee dispenser, you should know enough to not put it between your legs where it can spill, especially when you are riding in a car…
That case started a fire storm of cases for some of the most frivolous reasons on earth, where common sense has been replaced by dollar signs, mostly from ambulance chasing lawyers looking for their “big payday”.
ThinkingForMyself on June 25, 2007 at 1:18 PM
The Monster on June 25, 2007 at 1:14 PM
heh heh sorry , So your censoring me? MAY-BE because I NEVER use the word and comming from of a positive problem solving perspective this red neckism could be overlooked. So excuuuuuse me! PS I’m from New Jersey. Yee Haw!
sonnyspats1 on June 25, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Pearson is a fool. Doesn’t he know a pair of pants is only worth 33 million?
Heralder on June 25, 2007 at 1:39 PM
coming (sp) oops.lol
sonnyspats1 on June 25, 2007 at 1:40 PM
I think the old lady should have paid McDonalds a bonus, instead of suing them, that cup of cofee was the hottest thing that’s been in her lap since the great depression.
JayHaw Phrenzie on June 25, 2007 at 1:48 PM
locomotivebreath1901 on June 25, 2007 at 12:05 PM
No actually it doesn’t, it amounts to a federally sanctioned prohibition. The first amendment makes a very important statement as follows… “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of…” What is the the significant pivotal point of this statement? Make no law…The first amendment hangs in its entirety upon those three little words. Congress shall make no law either supporting or prohibiting religion.
Since allowing religious NGO’s to bid on government contracts is not a law establishing any religion it derives then naturally that refusing to allow religious NGO’s to bid on government contracts is a law prohibiting the free expression of religion.
Your initial warning is not only unconstitutional it seeks to change the constitution itself. What you are asserting is that any organization that has a primarily religious affiliation is automatically prohibited from doing business with the US government. This of course is a direct violation of the establishment clause’s “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
No it doesn’t, people go a long way to push their own political or ideological agenda’s. It is the secular humanists who are attempting to establish their religion of atheism as the state religion who keep trotting out the first half of the establishment clause while ignoring the second half.
I don’t want the state to have any opinion on religion what so ever. That includes the religions of secular humanism or atheism. I don’t want them providing any establishment for or prohibition against what anyone believes. I want the government to be completely neutral. More importantly that is what the first amendment demands that the government do, take no stance which would permit any law be passed that would establish or prohibit any religion.
A better solution would be for the government to not take the money in the first place, but we also know that neither of these better solutions are acceptable to congress.
You get no argument from me on that.
doriangrey on June 25, 2007 at 2:04 PM
If I start a Sufi sect that tries to promote telepathy, can I get government funds?
Or an neo-Aztec symbolic heart-removal-only Sun-worshipping cult, what forms do I have to fill out for taxpayer-funded buckaroos?
No government (I first typed “givernment“) money for religions. Any religions.
Or this blind largesse’ll end up feeding dogmatic piranas who want to devour our freedoms and supplant them with Sharia Law.
No thanks.
Feed your own Gods on your own dime.
I’ll use mine for ammo.
profitsbeard on June 25, 2007 at 2:05 PM
The Monster on June 25, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Is this an original statement from you or are you just quoting some ignorant imbecile? If it is an original statement than I pity you, if not than I pity the fool you are quoting.
doriangrey on June 25, 2007 at 2:28 PM
“This case should have been thrown out months ago by the ’seat of its pants’.
Dis-bar Pearson and serve up a healthy plate of Tort reform!
dandy on June 25, 2007 at 11:01 AM”
Amen.
Aggie85 on June 25, 2007 at 2:42 PM
The frighting thing about the “pants lawsuit” is that the judge didn’t throw it out immediately. It makes you wonder what kind of idiots are administrating our judicial system.
duff65 on June 25, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Am I the only one who whenever hearing a tease for the “pants” suit story, thought it was something about Hillary?
RightWinged on June 25, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Yes, that connection is missing from this thread. I wonder why?
csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 5:44 PM
It’s not about free speech people. You can’t have kids walking around school with big billboards encouraging drug use. Am I alone on this here? Am I the only one who sees a society that is angry that our schools are failing, and then turns around and encourages the very behavior that perpetuates the failure?
SoulGlo on June 25, 2007 at 5:57 PM
Kid wasn’t in school.
JayHaw Phrenzie on June 25, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Maybe because it was recognized as a tender moment between just you and me.
RushBaby on June 25, 2007 at 7:12 PM
Agreed 100%!
.
GT on June 25, 2007 at 7:28 PM
I have to agree.
GT on June 25, 2007 at 7:47 PM
I think we have a winner for the most tasteless post! Thank you, O’ most wise and compassionate.
Tennman on June 25, 2007 at 8:16 PM
So now a Supreme Court ruling is needed to tell School Administrators that a banner promoting drugs is wrong?
And these morons are paid how much?
Grimmjack66 on June 25, 2007 at 8:29 PM
You should have seen the original post, before I cleaned it up for HotAir!
And regarding compassion, I have little compassion for someone that makes it through several decades of life and never learns that coffee is hot.
And I have less compassion for lawyers that exploit situations like this. You smell like a lawyer, Tenpenny.
JayHaw Phrenzie on June 25, 2007 at 8:46 PM
Bingo! You pegged me! (But I’m not a lawyer.)
Just go read the dadgum facts about the case. It wasn’t frivolous then, and it shouldn’t be the posterboy or postergirl case for frivolous lawsuits.
…a rose by any other name would smell as sweet…
Tennman on June 25, 2007 at 11:00 PM
I’m afraid your entire post is built upon a false premise. No money is going to “religion”, it is going to charitable NGO’s which have a religious affiliation. There are no examples of money for sun-worshipping or telepathy.
The federal government, which of course shouldn’t have anything to do with taxing people for other’s charity, is using agencies who already have a well-established (and well-vetted) distribution channel to more efficiently get charity money where it can do some good.
Until we can do something about government thinking it is in the charity business, at least there is less waste in using middle-man organizations that already know what they are doing, than another government beauracracy trying to handle charitable distributions.
Freelancer on June 26, 2007 at 1:46 AM