Supreme Court meme

[dsrtao]

As was demonstrated in an interview with Katie Couric, Sarah Palin is unable to name any Supreme Court Case other than Roe v. Wade.

The Rules: Post info about ONE Supreme Court decision, modern or historic, to your lj. (Any decision, as long as it's not Roe v. Wade.) For those who see this on your f-list, take the meme to your OWN lj to spread the fun.

Tinker v Des Moines established that minors have First Amendment rights, and that they are not waived on school grounds. It also announced limitations on those rights, specifically that exercise cannot involve material disruption of school events.

Subsequent cases have further limited the basic rights of students. Bong hits for Jesus, anyone?

On the other hand, many a protofascist school administrator has been hindered by Tinker, e.g. the case of James v Board of Education of the Central School District of Addison, NY, which established a teacher's right to wear an armband, a button, or similarly demonstrate religious or political views on school property. Charles James was a substitute teacher in my AP American History class on several occasions..

Comments

[liamstliam.livejournal.com]

One of the "limiting" cases was "Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, which basically allows prior restraint in school newspsapers.

[liamstliam.livejournal.com]

I happen to agree with the court in "Bong Hits."

To me, it's a pretty simple case of a student failing to follow legitimate school rules.

[dsrtao]

Three Supreme Court justices disagreed with you, though, as well as a federal appeals court.

[woodardp.livejournal.com]

I don't want to see a unanimous SC decision, because if the issue is so clear cut, it should have never gotten to the SC in the first place (oh, and Brown v Board of Education, which overturned Plessey v Ferguson and outlawed segregational education) (and yes, I know that B v BoE was a unanimous decision, but I make an exception for my rule above because it overturned a prior court decision)

[dsrtao]

A quick google for supreme court 9-0 turns up the following:

- The Clean Air Act can't be overturned by executive branch wiggling; power plants that were excused from pollution-abatement requirements while "routine maintenance" was performed must comply when significant changes are made.

- Federal judges cannot pre-emptively review administrative actions; first the action must occur, then it must be appealed, then it can be repealed.

- The obviousness of a patent cannot be rigidly codified.

- Employees can sue employers over mismanagement of 401(k) plans.

- Police may make a forced entry on a warrant without more than 15 seconds of notice.

I don't know if any of those were so obvious that they shouldn't have gone to the SC -- and I think the SC is wrong on one of them.

[liamstliam.livejournal.com]

Yes, but the majority rules.

I am also looking at it from a teacher's point of view.

[woodardp.livejournal.com]

Well, I think that 1, 2, and 4 are pretty obvious on first glance, just based on separation of jurisdiction and legal precedent. Not sure at all on 3, and on 5 I'd want to see what was the point of law that the court was considering.

But it is an interesting debate