School Shootings & The First Amendment

Again, I'm still in the midst of finals, so I will have to elaborate on this later, but this story has come out in the wake of the tragic shootings at VA Tech. It raises interesting issues about Free Speech, and what the schools can do to limit expression.


Student Charged After Violent Essay

CARY, Ill. - Authorities have filed a second disorderly conduct charge against a high school senior arrested for writing an essay officials described as disturbing and inappropriate.
Allen Lee, 18, of Cary was arrested earlier this week after penning the essay at his northern Illinois high school. Lee contends he was just following the creative writing assignment he was given in class at Cary-Grove High School.

Lee initially faced just one charge, but an amended complaint filed Thursday cited a second passage.

According to the complaint, the essay reads, in part, "Blood, sex and booze. Drugs, drugs, drugs are fun. Stab, stab, stab, stab, stab, s...t...a...b...puke. So I had this dream last night where I went into a building, pulled out two P90s and started shooting everyone, then had sex with the dead bodies. Well, not really, but it would be funny if I did."

Another passage said, "as a teacher, don't be surprised on inspiring the first CG shooting," the complaint said.

The creative writing assignment in Lee's English class on Monday instructed students to "write whatever comes to your mind. Do not judge or censor what you are writing," according to a copy of the assignment.

"In creative writing, you're told to exaggerate," Lee said. "It was supposed to be just junk. ... There definitely is violent content, but they're taking it out of context and making it something it isn't."

Lee has been removed from school, and District 155 spokesman Jeff Puma said the district is evaluating Lee's punishment while he attends an offsite learning program in the school district.
"It wasn't just violent or foul language," Puma said. "It went beyond that."

Lee's attorney, Dane Loizzo, said his client was within the parameters of the assignment.
"A stream of consciousness seems to be the goal of the assignment," Loizzo said. He said Lee has never been disciplined in school and signed Marine enlistment papers last week.

His father, Albert Lee, has defended his son as a straight-A student who was just following instructions and contends the school overreacted. However, Albert Lee has said he understands the situation because of what happened last week at Virginia Tech when student Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 students and faculty members before committing suicide.

The charges against Lee could result in a possible $1,500 fine and up to 30 days in jail if he is convicted. Cary is about 40 miles west of Chicago.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18353425/&GT1=9246

Abortion Ruling

I'm about to begin my last set of finals, so I don't have time to really elaborate, but everyone should read the Carhart opinion that was released this week.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380&friend=public

More comment on this later

Alive

I wanted to post to make sure this blog doesn't get shut down - I know I won't have time to post during finals and preparing for the Bar, but I hope to get up and running in the fall. I plan on expanding to cover more election issues during that time, as KY will be electing a governor and we will be closer to the '08 elections.

U.S.A, U.S.A.!!!

Two questions for you:
(1) Name the members of “The Simpsons” family [hint: there are five]
(2) Name the rights protected by the First Amendment [hint: same number]

In the latest indictment of America’s "education" system, a survey has found that Americans are much more knowledgeable of “The Simpsons” cast, than they are of their First Amendment rights. The survey also found that people could usually name more “American Idol” judges than First Amendment rights. While this survey is probably resulting in parties at the FOX network, it should raise concerns elsewhere.

According to the survey:
- over 50% of Americans could name more than one member of “The Simpsons”
- 22% can name all the members of “The Simpsons”
- only 25% can name more than one right protected by the First Amendment
- only 1 in 1000 can name all the rights protected by the First Amendment
- 38% believed the right against self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment) was a right protected by the First Amendment
- 20% believed the right to own a pet was protected by the First Amendment

I am very bothered that there are a substantial number of people voting in this country who have no idea what rights are protected by the First Amendment. I don’t care if these people are texting their vote for who the next “American Idol” is going to be. I am sickened by the thought that my vote in the next presidential election may be cancelled out by someone who thinks the Constitution protects the right to own hamsters. [Who can forget the heroic efforts of James Madison to get the states to compromise on the hot button issue of pet ownership???]

Gene Policinski, executive director of the Nashville, Tenn.-based First Amendment Center, said the results were disconcerting but not surprising. "It's disappointing that Americans continue to be ignorant of First Amendment freedoms but even more disappointing is that that these freedoms are more and more in the news," Policinski said, citing the protests at soldiers' funerals and the controversial Muhammad cartoons.

So yes, as we approach another election cycle, Americans are aware of who is going to get voted off of “American Idol”, but they are blissfully ignorant of their rights under the Constitution, and what politicians may be doing to infringe upon them. I normally complain about low voter turnout in this country; but things like this make me wish that FOX would run an all-day marathon of “The Simpsons” every time the polls open.

By the way, the answers:
(1) Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, Maggie
(2) Speech, religion, press, assembly, right to petition for redress of grievances [I’ll admit I didn’t remember that last one]

Limitations on the First Amendment

I will develop this topic more in the coming days, but there are some stories in the news right now that force us to look at what, if any, limitations should be placed on the rights protected by the First Amendment.

This one from CNN particularly bothers me, and brings in issues relating to religion, speech and assembly:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/21/funeral.motorcyclists.ap/index.html

Another story recently featured on CNN involves animal rights activists, and their efforts to stop animal testing at a lab in New Jersey.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/20/animalrights.trial.ap/index.html

The most glaring issues surrounding limitations on the First Amendment have been the violent protests against the Danish cartoons.

To be honest, I haven't really researched these issues as much as I'd like to, and I'll try to develop these over the next few days.

TV

I’ve heard of people who really like TV (and I’ll admit I spent a good amount of x-mas break watching sports and various Law & Order marathons) but this is out of hand.

Maybe the saddest thing is that this woman was out of touch with people for 2 ½ years before someone called the police. Apparently, she must have been in the habit of staying in front of the TV for 2 years at a time, but would then briefly emerge to let people know she was alive. When she had been out of contact for 2 ½ years someone started to worry.

How is this relevant to anything I usually write about?? I don’t know. I just couldn’t pass up posting something about a mummy.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/10/mummifed.body.ap/index.html

Coffee House Complaint

This is not a big deal, and something that most people could really care less about, but here goes: I was studying at my normal coffee house when the “Poetry Slam” people showed up

1. They bilked $3 out of everyone who wanted to stay (I didn’t mind paying - they are good for a laugh, and occasionally there is some actual talent);
2. The jackass hosting the whole thing wouldn’t shut up, and kept making all these stupid inside jokes that no one laughed at. Unfortunately the lack of crowd response didn’t deter the tool from talking endlessly;
3. Two of the competitors (who scored highly from the obviously biased “judges”) were terrible. They just got up and cussed loudly about losing their girlfriends and being alone in the world…came off reeeealllly whiny and pathetic;
4. There was one guy who was actually really talented, he read four poems before the “official scoring” began, and then kicked off the whole thing with a great one that he did almost purely from memory; he got the second lowest score of 7 competitors and didn’t make it to the second round…this was enough to finally make me leave.

Why have I brought this up here you may ask? The one reason that the best “poet” didn’t make it was because his work had religious themes in a couple places. He described his drug addiction and time in prison, and mentioned “redemption” and that the endless pursuit of physical pleasure destroys the soul. The crowd reaction for that poem was much more tepid than an earlier one in which he had simply blasted the prison system.

I have not attended church in years, and so this isn’t some kind of effort to find someone discriminating against me. I’m simply bothered by these white suburbanites who consider themselves to be “revolutionaries” (you all know who I mean – the guys with black eyeliner, wearing Che Guevara t-shirts, with 8 million bumper-stickers on their Volvo’s, complaining about the “system”). They constantly talk about “tolerance” and “acceptance”, yet I could look around the room and watch them all roll their eyes when a recovering drug-addict mentioned religion.

Now that I’ve gone on that tirade, here is my point: when you all set up some kind of event that is supposed to showcase talented performance-oriented poets, don’t be so close-minded that you vote off the best of the bunch because he mentions religion. Get over yourselves for five minutes and recognize legitimate talent, even if you don’t completely agree with the message.

Alito Nomination

It seems like we’re getting very accustomed to the nomination process, and the rhetoric that ensures after the initial announcement, so here is my two cents. Of the three nominees we’ve seen this year, Samuel Alito is the one with the most judicial experience. Even more so than Roberts, and in striking contrast to Harriet Miers, Alito has a distinguished record and a paper trail that will allow a close examination of his qualifications and judicial style.

Immediately after the nomination there was an outcry about his dissent in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the most famous abortion case since Roe v. Wade. I have not had the chance to read this dissent yet, but it should not single-handedly sink his nomination. A quick overview of some of Alito’s decisions shows someone who is definitely conservative, but who appears to strongly value important rights such as Free Speech and Free Exercise of religion. I realize that abortion is a pivotal issue for people, but I detest the “litmus test” philosophy that has been adopted in recent years. A judge’s view on this single issue should not be determinative of whether he is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

I had a discussion with a friend of mine right after Alito was announced, and we came to the conclusion that it is ludicrous that we have reached a point where the President has to be afraid to nominate someone with a firm record. There is no logic to constantly having to appoint judicial outsiders or relatively new judges to the Supreme Court. I would prefer to know how someone thinks, rather than having to play a guessing game as to what they will do once they get onto the bench.

The 15 years Alito has spent on the Third Circuit will provide an incredible opportunity to scrutinize his judicial philosophy. Though certain people may not agree with his style, my initial reaction is that he is an intelligent judge who, though conservative, will uphold the Constitution and show proper deference to important precedents. In the end, this should be what we look for in a Supreme Court Justice, not just how he would rule on one issue.

Iran

The recent comments by the President of Iran that Israel should be “wiped from the map” underscores the validity of concerns about Iran’s continued development in the nuclear arena. The Bush administration has been unceasing in its criticism of Iran, and in warning the world that Iran should not be given assistance in its nuclear ambitions. If the world was unsure or unconvinced about the danger posed by Iraq, it should not harbor the same doubts about the growing threat of Iran.

These comments by Iran’s president are just another indication of how dangerous it would be to give this nation potential access to nuclear weapons. Iran already has a long history of funding terrorism, and is apparently still bent on the destruction of Israel (and if they had their choice, the United States). France and Germany, among others, have criticized the remarks and have demanded an explanation.

I should think that there is little need for an explanation, President Ahmadinejad’s remarks were very clear. Europe needs to show a little backbone in this situation, and make it clear to Iran that the rest of the world will not support a nation who overtly calls for the destruction of another U.N. member and tries to deceive the world by claiming it has only peaceful ambitions. The U.N. is being given another opportunity to take the lead in an important issue of world security, lets see if they are up to the task, and whether they can keep member-states from providing support for Iran’s nuclear program.

Tom Delay

I have made a conscientious effort not to be overly partisan on this blog, but I have to address this issue. Tom Delay has long prided himself as being “the hammer” in the House of Representatives. He has made it well-known that he goes to great lengths to get what he wants, and to push his agenda. His conduct has consistently violated ethical standards of conduct (he is a favorite of the House Ethics Committee) and I don’t doubt that he has broken the law on numerous occasions.

Tom Delay might beat the rap on this prosecution, maybe he is smooth enough that he dodged actually breaking any laws. Regardless of whether he is convicted, I think this picture speaks a thousand words. This picture is Delay's mug-shot.

He really looks like someone who is remorseful about his conduct. Even if he didn’t break the law, Delay has proven himself to be an incredibly unethical politician, and in my opinion symbolizes a lot about what is wrong with American politics. I hope that when this mess resolves itself the GOP is smart enough not to put him back in power.

Miers Nomination

President Bush has announced that White House counsel Harriet Miers is his nominee to replace retiring Justice O’Connor. Miers has held several positions in the White House since 2000, being elevated to her current position last year.

My initial reaction to this nomination is definitely disappointment. Ms. Miers has spent virtually her entire career in private practice, though she was chairperson of the Texas Lottery Commission, and served two years as a Dallas City Council member. She has never served in the judiciary, and at the moment it does not appear that she has an extensive history of high-level appellate litigation experience.

The President has made it a habit to pick individuals with whom he has a close personal relationship for important positions (i.e. Dick Cheney for VP). This habit might work well for Cabinet positions, and political appointments where the President will be required to work closely with an agency. In those situations it is often necessary to have someone who is trustworthy and will help push the administration’s political position.

The Supreme Court is a different matter altogether. The Court is not meant to be a collection of trusted administration insiders who get together and make political decisions. While I believe the President has a right to pick someone whose beliefs are somewhat in line with his own, I don’t think that gives him the right to install his personal attorney as the next Supreme Court Justice.

Perhaps in the coming weeks my opinion will change, as more information is made available it may become clear that Ms. Miers has the legal qualifications for this position. However, on the heels of the Roberts confirmation, and with the number of appellate judges available, I can’t help but be disappointed by this nomination.

New Chief Justice

I haven’t posted in a while, getting back into school has been very hectic, but I’m hoping to post more over the next couple of months.

I was glad that the Senate voted to approve John Roberts to assume the position of Chief Justice. Chief Justice Rehnquist was an incredible jurist, and from everything that I have seen, a good-natured man who was respected by all those around him, including his successor. He has left big shoes to fill, and it is appropriate that they are being filled by someone who had the opportunity to work with him.

Roberts certainly does not have an easy task, the court is very divided (we will see who the President chooses to replace O’Connor) and he has not had a lot of time to prepare for his new role. Roberts will be under a lot of scrutiny, and I hope he is up to the task. Though he was criticized by several high-ranking Democrats, his record shows that he is an extremely good lawyer, with amazing analytical and writing skills. Several recent decisions (see Kelo, among others) have relied on shaky legal grounds, and I hope that the addition of someone like Roberts will force more true reasoning into decisions, rather than just personal ideology.

Regardless of what happens in the future, Roberts has impressed a lot of people. President Bush still has to choose another nominee, and he is going to have a hard time finding someone who looks as good on paper as John Roberts.

Terror in London

The senseless bombing of innocent civilians in London last week reminds us all that the war against terrorism is not going to be limited to the streets of Baghdad and Kabul. Once again, the terrorists have shown their willingness to use any means necessary to scare people into submission. There should be no sympathy for these murderers, and their indiscriminant targeting of civilians is absolutely inexcusable.

We should listen to commentary from the Arab world regarding their problems with increasing Western intervention in their business, but violent attacks by extremists will not lead to anything but more bloodshed and hatred. A moderate voice needs to rise up and truly show that the actions of terrorists do not have the support of the Islamic world. Islam is not a religion of hatred, but it is being hijacked by fringe elements, and being used to justify atrocious acts that no religion would ever support.

I pray that the people of London will be able to recover from these attacks and get on with their lives. I also hope that this will only strengthen the resolve of all civilized people in the world to denounce and destroy those who use terror as a means to advance their own distorted vision of the world.

This is a good website started after the attacks

http://www.werenotafraid.com/

Supreme Court Vacancy

The retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has left the Supreme Court with its first vacancy in 11 years. Justice O’Connor has for years been considered one of the “moderate” justices, whose vote is often the critical 5th vote on a court that regularly divides 5-4. Groups on both sides of the political spectrum had already firmly entrenched themselves for the nomination/confirmation process, anticipating the retirement of conservative Chief Justice Rehnquist. Now the battle will be even fiercer, because the President will not simply be replacing one “solid” conservative with another, but he can actually change the entire balance of power on the nation’s highest court.

I know it is entirely naïve, but I would like to see appointments based upon the qualifications and history of a candidate rather than his or her adherence to a certain political position. President Bush has commented that the court lacks a “Judicial Giant”, someone in the mold of Oliver Wendell Holmes, or Benjamin Cardozo. For example, Richard Posner of the University of Chicago was a judge on the 7th Circuit for nearly 20 years, and is one of the best known legal minds in America. It would be nice to see Bush nominate someone such as Posner for the vacancy, rather than picking an administration insider. (Here is a link to Posner’s blog: http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/)

Unfortunately, now might not be the time to appoint a true “moderate” to the court. The recent eminent domain decision is the most recent example that leads me to believe the next appointment(s) to the court need to be judges who have a more strict interpretation of the Constitution. As much as we like to consider that there is a “living” Constitution, the fact of the matter is that the Constitution is a document that has a discoverable meaning as it was written. The fact that five justices were able to “read in” that almost any incidental benefit to the public qualifies as a “public use” under the Constitution is very disturbing. Whoever is appointed to replace Justice O’Connor needs to be someone who is not going to change the meaning of the Constitution to fit with their own vision of how society should be ordered. Congress is our legislative body, and such a change should originate with them.

The new justice needs to make sure that the court knows its role in our democracy, and doesn’t try to usurp the powers of the legislature. If that means that we have to appoint a more conservative justice, than so be it.