Transcripts4Jesus

The Supreme Court posts the transcript in Morse v. Frederick, in which the government and others argue that statements made across the street from a school regarding 1) bongs; and/or 2) Jesus constitutionally subject a student to discipline.  If there is one thing that can unite the political left and the religious right it has got to be this case.  And, judging by the amicus briefs, it did.

Or, as Emil Steiner writes:

So what appeared at first to be a political slam dunk for social conservatives has now become something of an ideological key party, with the religious right jumping into bed with the ACLU and the National Coalition Against Censorship. I suppose all is fair in love and culture war.

Jesus was unavailable for comment, having recently got the munchies (Luke: 22:7-20) and blessed those with the munchies (Luke 6:21). 

I think that most of the parties overlooked the assumption that marijuana is likely legal in Alaska, at least for personal possession and regulated medical use.  In fact, the Alaska Supreme Court has held so, see Noy v. AK (citing Ravin v. AK).

I am putting some of the greatest hits from the oral argument below the fold.

Some of the greatest hits from oral argument include:

JUSTICE GINSBURG: So if the sign had been "Bong Stinks for Jesus," that would be, and Morse had the same reaction, that this was demeaning to the Olympics and it was unruly conduct, that there would be a protected right under Tinker because the message was not promoting drugs?

--

JUSTICE SCALIA: Why can't we decide this case on that narrow enough ground, that any school whether it has expressed the policy or not, can suppress speech that advocates violation of the law?

MR. STARR: I think it can, but it raises some interesting potential hypothetical questions, what about listening to the voice of Martin Luther King Junior, conscientious objection and so forth. I don't think the Court needs to stray into those areas because here we have a written policy which does in fact respond to concerns about the exercise of standardless discretion.

-------

JUSTICE BREYER: Suppose that this particular person had whispered to his next door neighbor, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus, heh heh heh," you know. Supposed that's what had happened? (Laughter.)
MR. KNEEDLER: And that may well -- that may well be different.

-----

 

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Can the student be allowed to wear a button that says "Rape Is Fun"?
MR. MERTZ: No, I don't think so --
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Why?         
MR. MERTZ: There is a distinction there.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Why?
MR. MERTZ: Because when you're talking about hate speech, speech that advocates violence, then you're in another category of speech. There has been general recognition
JUSTICE SCALIA: Nonviolent crimes are okay, it's only violent crimes that you can't, you can not promote, right? Right?
MR. MERTZ: I think there is a --
JUSTICE SCALIA: "Extortion Is Profitable," that's okay?

I wouldn’t have conceded anything.  The line between “violent” and “non-violent” crimes is somewhat hazy.  For example, a student might have a t-shirt that advocates for the use of firearms in defending one’s home, in a jurisdiction where most uses of firearms to do so are considered criminal.  This would seem to fall under Tinker. 

For example, consider the following potential slogans: 

1. Waterboarding by the CIA is a patriotic act.
2. The Geneva Conventions Suck.
3. Join the Army, meet interesting people, kill them.
4. Kill a commie for mommie.

All of them are actually pretty violent. Some of them have been adopted by the government. Where do they all fit in?

---------

JUSTICE BREYER: I conceive that interference consists of it's pretty hard to run a school where kids go around at public events publicly making a joke out of drugs. That's what his thought is.

(Okay, what is he smoking?  Kids always make a joke out of drugs.  Schools are still run. The Republic remains strong despite the "war on drugs," as waged in schools being laughed at, both by pot-heads and straight-edges, alike)

---------

MR. MERTZ: Mr. Chief Justice, there are two different time points we have to talk about. There's the heat of the moment out there on the street, but then later back in the office when she actually decided to levy the punishment after she had talked to him, after she heard why he did it and why he didn't do it, after she had had a chance to consult with the school district's counsel. At that point in the calmness of her office, then she should indeed have known it. And she did testify that she had taken a master's degree course in school law in which she studied Kuhlmeier and Frazier and Tinker. So ---