A Supreme Court Conversation
Dear Walter and Stuart,
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponThank you so much for your insights today. I'm guessing we'll all be reading and rereading this opinion through the weekend.
I agree with you both that to even begin to understand what this case means going forward, you'd need to put yourself in Justice Kennedy's brain. And Kennedy is squeezed between two worlds he cannot quite bear: He can't allow that school districts must simply live with the status quo. But he can't tolerate a world in which children face "differential treatment based on a classification that tells each student he or she is to be defined by race."
Stuart, you offer the possibility of a class-based system, and Kennedy offers a host of other mechanisms—site selection, attendance zones—anything but the admittedly clunky "white/nonwhite" systems he sees in Seattle and Louisville. So, to paraphrase/mangle the chief justice's plurality opinion, Justice Kennedy still wants Americans to be able to address racial imbalances; he just doesn't want them to do so using systems that expressly account for race.
There are lots of proxies for race that would avoid such awkward labeling—Stuart's socioeconomic model being one—but as you may recall from our discussion of the Grutter ruling, Walter, I objected to the "diversity" rationale for affirmative action at Michigan then, and I am uncomfortable with using fictions to remedy real problems now. We have a serious problem of racial resegregation in America. Why call the program to remedy it something else? As Justice Breyer observes in his dissent, of course there is a "cost in applying a state-mandated label … but that cost does not approach, in degree or in kind, the terrible harms of slavery, the resulting caste system, and 80 years of legal racial segregation."
One of the reasons Justice Breyer's dissent strikes you as "alarmist, accusatory, you-are-killing-Brown," Stuart, is that regardless of the net effect of this decision, the Roberts plurality really is killing Brown. Roberts isn't merely using Brown to support a decision that everyone knows to be wholly not in the spirit of Brown. He's also attacking—and I use that word advisedly—the whole constitutional groundwork that supported Brown. It's hard to read Roberts' opinion as anything other than that broad, although he masks it as "the familiar and well-established analytic approach of strict scrutiny to evaluate the plans at issue today, an approach that in no way warrants the dissents cataclysmic concerns."
I'm not surprised the dissenters are pissed. What Roberts holds out as a dispassionate, mechanistic, and apolitical legal project is in fact an ideological and immoderate attack on a principle they believed to be inviolate. And I imagine it's insulting after a while for the dissenting justices to be cast in the role of irrational hysterics. Someone pointed me today to the most amazing portion of Breyer's dissent, in which he says the problem with the plurality's logic "lies in its overly theoretical approach to case law, an approach that emphasizes rigid distinctions between holdings and dicta in a way that serves to mask the radical nature of today's decision. Law is not an exercise in mathematical logic."
There is only one way in which the chief justice's famous comparison of justices to umpires still holds after today's plurality opinion: It turns out justices and umpires both wear masks.
Yours,
Dahlia
Happy Birthday, Smokey Bear
Are Gas Grills More Eco-Friendly Than Charcoal Ones?
He-Man: Briefs of Rage and Other Toy-Inspired Movies We're Dying To See
Kaus: Seven Possible Theories Explaining Palin's Resignation
The U.S. Embassy in Djibouti Cordially Invites You to a Fourth of July Cookout
The Week's Best Editorial Cartoons
Remarks from the Fray:
This decision is a disappointment. Not in its result, because I strongly believe this is the correct decision. What is disappointing is that the Supremes chose to issue another decision that doesn't announce a guiding principle, and which applies only the present case. This reminds me of a classic Calvin & Hobbes cartoon, in which our heroes created an army of Snow Goons to battle the evil Susie Derkins. But the Snow Goons eventually turn on Calvin & Hobbes. After finally defeating the Snow Goons, Calvin says to Hobbes, "Well, we sure learned a valuable lesson today. And that lesson is this: Snow Goons are bad news!" To which Hobbes replies, "That's a lesson that ought not to have any applicability elsewhere in life."
This is a Snow Goons decision. It stands for the extremely narrow proposition that school districts can forbid expressions that appear to advocate recreational drug use. What about other messages that are contrary to the educational mission of the school? We don't know, because the Supreme Court is only interested in resolving for us the extremely pressing issue of whether "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" is acceptable speech in an educational environment. Heaven help any school administrator who looks to this decision for guidance. […] Next year's landmark decision: "METH 4 MOSES"
--CaLawyer
(To reply, click here.)
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but how can Dellinger say that there is no harm to the taxpayers in Hein, and so no standing? Isn't the precedent, upheld by the FEC ruling, that spending money is a form of speech? And so isn't saying it's okay to spend my tax money on something sort of a tacit way of saying I agree with or I approve of what it is being spent on? So if my tax money is being spent to support religious institutions that I don't support or agree with, isn't that a violation of my first amendment rights? I mean isn't the harm that the government is essentially forcing me to support particular religious institutions that I might not agree with? Or by Dellinger's argument, would my case only have merit if I argued that having to support a specific religious institution with my tax money was violating my freedom to practice religion (or not) in the way I want.
I realize that there's a potential problem with the argument I've laid out b/c it opens the door to saying that spending tax dollars on anything that I don't approve of is a violation of my right to free speech. But I would think that there's probably a fairly clear way to distinguish between spending in general and spending that targets only specific religious institutions. Also, my argument isn't that the court should necessarily find for the taxpayer group in this case, but that I think that if the legislature or the executive branch is going to ask me to contribute money to religious groups...then I should at least be able to have the judiciary decide if they're doing it in a constitutional way.
--SlateSurfer
(To reply, click here.)
It looks like the student made a minor mistake. Instead of unfolding the banner at or near the school grounds, he should have purchased 15 seconds of add time on the local TV station, with video showing the banner and a somber voice advising viewers to call the school principal and ask why he opposes the banner.
--rrfan
(To reply, click here.)
With regard to the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause, Dellinger writes, "Government prayer, bad . . . private prayer, good." Where, pray tell, does Dellinger find a prohibition on "government" in the 1st Amendment? Of course "the government" can be petitioned for a redress of grievances, but the key word in the text is "Congress" -- not "the state" and not "the government". The amendment places a limit on the actions of Congress, not on "government" in general. And "Congress" means "Congress" -- it doesn't mean "the Executive branch" or anything else that isn't Congress.
--Tori_Fox-Hunter
(To reply, click here.)
The courts always have trouble with humor. They're serious places filled with serious people in serious clothes doing serious things. Judges demand - and expect -respect, and don't tolerate jokes. Even when they talk about humor, they fall back on Important Satirists like Jonathan Swift, and don't discuss the equally subversive, but much funnier, Moliere.
So Lenny Bruce gets convicted of obscenity and George Carlin gets banned from the airwaves, but the American Nazi Party can march in Skokie and Saving Private Ryan can go on network TV. And if you want to convince a court that your speech deserves protection, you're much better off if there's a serious purpose, no matter how odious, than if you're trying to be funny.
The thing is, the First Amendment doesn't say "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of serious speech," or "core political speech" or anything like that. Still, just as Chief Justice Roberts interpolated a pro-drug message into a nonsense phrase, judges seem to interpolate seriousness language into the First Amendment. It makes me think that maybe, just maybe, we would have been better off if Ben Franklin had been involved in the drafting of the Bill of Rights, rather than the other, very serious Founding Fathers. He, at least, understood the value of a good joke.
--randy-khan
(To reply, click here.)
Both Walter and Dahlia are taking the position that it isn't at all clear that "Bong hits 4 Jesus" advocates for illegal drug use. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I personally can't think of anything that "bong hits" could be referring to except smoking marijuana. What else would a high school student possibly mean by that phrase? If Walter and Dahlia were right, it would mean that school administrators would be prohibited from making reasonable inferences about colloquial phrases, and only the most explicit endorsements of illegal activity could be prohibited. To take an example almost anyone would find offensive, what if a student wore a T-shirt depicting a hooded figure holding a noose with the phrase "string em up high", and claimed that its referring to a pinata; could that be prohibited pursuant to Walter and Dahlia's interpretation of the law?
--Aagcobb
(To reply, click here.)
Dellinger's argument that the other branches should have a coequal or similar authority to interpret the Constitution as the judiciary is a very bad argument. […] This presents a slippery slope to all sorts of bad consequences, including Executive officials feeling they have the right to disobey judicial interpretations of the Constitution as well as laws of Congress that they don't agree with-- even if the President signed those laws rather than vetoing them!
The Bush Administration has effectively demonstrated these problems to a greater extent than could ever be imagined. Attempts are made to rely on standing and jurisdiction doctrines to keep matters out of court, and then the Executive Branch comes up with completely unreasonable and ridiculous interpretations of the law that are insulated from challenge. Signing statements are used to neuter statutes that are signed into law by the President.
Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison had it right. It is entirely the province of the judiciary to say what the law is. Any other approach leads to a potential dictatorship.
--Dilan Esper
(To reply, click here.)
(6/26)