• Front page
• Receive this content on your RSS reader

This Speakout has not been edited

By Tom Michel, Aurora

Once again the media tries to simplify a story to the point that it is inaccurate. In refereeing to the recent 5-4 Supreme Court decisions, the Associated Press does little to explain the cases or the actual opinions of the Justices. Instead of doing this most simple of newsworthy tasks, it simply falls back on labels such as conservative and liberal. Ask any of the nine justices on the Supreme Court and they resent these labels.

The case of Federal Election committee vs. Wisconsin Right to Life is based on the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law that banned “issue” ads before an election. Many people felt that this provision of McCain-Feingold was a restriction on free speech, banning when an ad could be run, and was unconstitutional to begin with. However, the AP wrote it up as “opening the way for deep-pocketed interests to broadcast…. advertising close to elections” and demonstrating that “changes in the court’s lineup can alter a case’s outcome.” Is saying that you can run any advertisement you want really “conservative”? Did the justices all agree or was it more complicated? Is the lineup critical to the case based on their decision? The only way to know is to actually read the opinion of the Court and the dissent. One side believes (usually called conservative) freedom of speech takes precedent, while the other believes that Congress is within its power to limit ads and contributions (liberal). This is a switch from their usual sides but the opinions clearly explain why they interpret the constitution they way they do. In the case Morse v. Frederick, called the “Bong hits for Jesus” case, it is much more complex than any newspaper has reported. The decision was 5-4 on the merits but all nine justices upheld the protection of the principal for taking the banner down.

They also all agreed that a school has a right to limit speech that violates school rules and most agreed courts should defer to the schools. However, Justice Stevens dissent clearly shows it was the “vagueness” of this particular message that should have meant the student was not suspended. Since the banner did not clearly support drug use, it did not warrant a suspension. Justice Breyer went as far to say that the case should not have even been decided on the First Amendment but rule simply that the district is immune from the financial lawsuit brought by the student and to leave it at that.

Many media reports say that the “conservative” Court voted to deny students freedom of speech. Again, one could look at that way, or one could seek the truth for themselves, that all the justices agreed that schools have the ability to restrict certain speech.

People forget that the last 5 years has had its share of “liberal” decisions too. Two years ago the so-called “liberal” side of the Court decided that towns and cities can take away private property via “eminent domain” as long as there was a community benefit (more taxes) in Kelo v. New London Connecticut. The Court also ruled that Guantanamo prisoners had the right to due process in their detention contrary to the Bush administrations position (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld). The Court upheld Oregon’s right to die law as constitutional (Gonzales v. Oregon). Finally, the Court ruled unanimously that all people in a stopped vehicle, can challenge the stop, not just the driver (Brendlin v. California).

If all of these decisions are part of the “conservative” court then I must not understand the definition correctly. In some cases the court’s decision appeals to conservatives, to liberals, and sometimes both or neither. To label the Court as conservative or liberal is inaccurate and irresponsible. What would be far more useful would be to actually read the opinions and dissents of the court and learn that there are more similar opinions than we are told by the media. In the 64 decisions (plus 8 per curiam) this year through June 26, there have been more 9-0 decisions than 5-4 decisions. When you add 8-1/7-1 decisions to the equation, over half of all the decisions are either unanimous or have only one dissent. That does not look conservative to me, that looks like nine justices applying the Constitution, sometimes in ways I disagree with, but never “liberal” or “conservative” according to the justices. The media should report what is actually decided and not play politics with the Court.

READER COMMENTS

I was in the army national guard for 16 years. I did my time and there were men and women would come 2 or 3 drills. I would see that they would not come back. I think the military should go after all the AWOL. I know some went to school on the tax payers. by RS

I was in the army national guard for 16 years. I did my time and there were men and women would come 2 or 3 drills. I would see that they would not come back. I think the military should go after all the AWOL. I know some went to school on the tax payers. by RS

All of their rulings were illegal. Judge Alito is a UCMJ-felon (illegal separation and discharge) and AWOLee/deserter. Yes, just like "W". Alito got his 7 years of college (JD and undergrad degrees), courtesy of taxpayer funds in the US Army's ROTC program. Alito incurred an active duty militray obligation of 11 years for these "gifts". He blew off his obligation just like "W" did, only Alito use the ruse of him being a federal law clerk. Federal law clerk isn't mentioned in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), therefore, Alito is a felon.

POST A COMMENT

• Understanding history will help maintain freedoms
• Leaders do not understand the ravages of war
• A century to be proud of
• Think about all Coloradans in expansion
• New way of financing government
• A Nation Of Legal Immigrants
• The Hype on, On-Line Gaming.
• Adult children and aging parents