Common sense returns to the Court!

Informed reasoning and true rule of law seem to be the highlights – virtues – of the Roberts Court. Today’s rulings covering free speech (see post below) also included just how loosely that freedom can be pursued and protected. Reason prevailed.

Also Monday, the Supreme Court upheld the right of an Alaska school principal to confiscate a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” from a student who unfurled the banner off school grounds at an Olympic torch event in Juneau.

The court’s opinion on the First Amendment was by a vote of 5-4 in a split between the conservative and liberal blocs of the high court. Justice Stephen Breyer gave the majority a sixth vote in a concurring ruling that stopped after saying the principal was shielded from a lawsuit over the incident, citing immunity as a government official.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., in the majority opinion on the First Amendment, said school officials dodged the First Amendment because the banner referred to illegal drug use. “We hold that schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use,” Justice Roberts wrote. “We conclude that the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner.”

Then the Court turned its attention to the atheists lawsuit against the Bush administration’s faith-based initiatives.

The lawsuit was filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation and alleged the White House initiative violates the freedom from religion Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Once again, a reminder is in order that the Establishment Clause is not a “freedom from religion” clause, but a guarantee that Congress will not establish a particular religion as a State religion, nor prohibit the free exercise of religion.

President Bush created an office for religious-based community initiatives in 2001. The aim of the office is to make it easier for religious groups to win contracts and get federal funding for programs such as social-services aid.

This is another way for the government to get aid to the people who need it.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago in May 2006 ordered a federal trial court to reopen the lawsuit after a U.S. District Court judge had dismissed the group’s claims. The Supreme Court ruling reverses that holding…

Justice Samuel Alito authored the main opinion in the case. The court’s five conservatives made up the majority in a ruling that said the atheist group doesn’t meet the requirements as taxpayers to challenge the office. “It has long been established, however, that the payment of taxes is generally not enough to establish standing to challenge an action by the federal government,” Justice Alito wrote…

Justice Alito’s opinion was signed by Justices Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas concurred in a separate opinion.

To repeat a point often made here, one of the most important reasons to elect a particular president is his ability to appoint justices to the Supreme Court. This is becoming clearer and more outstanding these days.