Sotomayor's Bad 1st Amendment Decision Should Disqualify Her

[Agnapostate]

This was from the beginning at the month before Sotomayor was confirmed as Obama's nominee, but obviously still plays an important role in determining her perspective on First Amendment issues.

Sotomayor's Bad 1st Amendment Decision Should Disqualify Her - Paul Levinson - Open Salon

According to Sam Stein in the Huffington Post, Sonia Sotomayor is "the odds-on favorite" to be chosen by Barack Obama to fill retiring Justice David Souter's seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. She now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit in New York City. She is regularly described as liberal and a judicial activist - fine in my book - and it would good to have a first Hispanic and another woman on the Supreme Court.

But she has one major, very bad decision on free speech and press to her discredit, which should give everyone who values these freedoms in our society serious cause for concern about Sotomayor's possible nomination to the High Court.

The decision came from Sotomayor's Second Circuit Court last May, regarding Lewis Mills High School student Avery Doninger. While running for Senior Class Secretary, Ms. Doninger found reason to object to the school's cancellation of a "jamfest" event, and characterized those who scotched the event as "douchebags" on her off-campus LiveJournal blog (she also characterized a school official in that same blog posting as getting "pissed off"). The school officials, in turn, took umbrage, prohibited Avery from running for Class Secretary, and disregarded the plurality of votes she received, anyway, as a write-in candidate. Avery sued the school officials, and the Federal District Court supported the school. Avery appealed to Sotomayor's Second Circuit Court.

After acknowledging the Supreme Court's 1969 Tinker decision, which held that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," Sotomayor's Court proceeded to affirm the District Court's ruling - that is, Sonia Sotomayor and her colleague justices upheld the high school's right to punish Doninger for her off-campus speech. Their reasoning was that schools have an obligation to impart to their students "shared values," which include not only the importance of free expression but a "proper respect for authority".

"Proper respect for authority" ... is this what our democratic society and freedom is based upon?

...

And there's a somewhat opposed view here.

 

[KittenKoder]

No one against free speech should be allowed in any office, period.

 

[Article 15]

Man, that's whack.

 

[Amanda]

Sounds like most Libs to me...

What I agree with is great regardless, what I disagree with is shit regardless. No principles, no weighing the pros and cons, just pure, unadulterated bias. It must be nice to occupy the moral high ground and not have to consider anything other than what you already believe.

 

[Agnapostate]

Sounds like most Libs to me...

Clarence Thomas is the only current justice entirely opposed to Tinker v. Des Moines and student free speech rights. And honestly, the conservative majority (Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and the right-leaning Kennedy), should be considered the more troublesome lot, since they were the ones responsible for the majority ruling in Morse v. Frederick (the 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case). That said, I'm honestly surprised that there are people who find such blatant authoritarian suppression of student free speech rights acceptable. I mean, hell, I gave my vice-principal the Nazi salute and the ACLU was still willing to defend me for it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sounds like most Libs to me...

Clarence Thomas is the only current justice entirely opposed to Tinker v. Des Moines and student free speech rights. And honestly, the conservative majority (Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and the right-leaning Kennedy), should be considered the more troublesome lot, since they were the ones responsible for the majority ruling in Morse v. Frederick (the 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case). That said, I'm honestly surprised that there are people who find such blatant authoritarian suppression of student free speech rights acceptable. I mean, hell, I gave my vice-principal the Nazi salute and the ACLU was still willing to defend me for it.

That is because your an idiot. Hey thanks for proving it.

Bad decision in my opinion but legally sound. Students do NOT have the same rights as everyone else. The School personnel must be able to maintain control over the Student Body and be able to address any and all situations.

In this single case, one could argue that since it was done off school it should be exempted, HOWEVER she was running for a position of some importance with IN the School and basically stated she found the people that would supervise her in those duties to be ignorant. She got what she deserved in the end.

 

[Agnapostate]

That is because your an idiot. Hey thanks for proving it.

Moron, your dumb ass doesn't know what happened, so don't pretend to.

Bad decision in my opinion but legally sound. Students do NOT have the same rights as everyone else. The School personnel must be able to maintain control over the Student Body and be able to address any and all situations.

I've attempted to address this legal ignorance of yours several times. It is indeed the case that students do not possess the same constitutional rights in school as they (or adults) might possess elsewhere. However, it is indeed a reality that they possess some degree of constitutional rights within school, as established by Tinker v. Des Moines. Please familiarize yourself with case law before spewing nonsense.

In this single case, one could argue that since it was done off school it should be exempted, HOWEVER she was running for a position of some importance with IN the School and basically stated she found the people that would supervise her in those duties to be ignorant. She got what she deserved in the end.

Lemme tell ya, Insurgent...over the past few days, you've posted some of the most legally retarded bullshit I've ever had the misfortune to encounter.
You've tried to repeat some idiocy that adults will get convicted of statutory rape for sexual interactions with persons above the age of consent. You've opined that it's necessary for people who believe that waterboarding is illegal to advocate the prosecution of those involved in SERE training. But this nonsense is by far the worst, IMO.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That is because your an idiot. Hey thanks for proving it.

Moron, your dumb ass doesn't know what happened, so don't pretend to.

Bad decision in my opinion but legally sound. Students do NOT have the same rights as everyone else. The School personnel must be able to maintain control over the Student Body and be able to address any and all situations.

I've attempted to address this legal ignorance of yours several times. It is indeed the case that students do not possess the same constitutional rights in school as they (or adults) might possess elsewhere. However, it is indeed a reality that they possess some degree of constitutional rights within school, as established by Tinker v. Des Moines. Please familiarize yourself with case law before spewing nonsense.

In this single case, one could argue that since it was done off school it should be exempted, HOWEVER she was running for a position of some importance with IN the School and basically stated she found the people that would supervise her in those duties to be ignorant. She got what she deserved in the end.

Lemme tell ya, Insurgent...over the past few days, you've posted some of the most legally retarded bullshit I've ever had the misfortune to encounter.
You've tried to repeat some idiocy that adults will get convicted of statutory rape for sexual interactions with persons above the age of consent. You've opined that it's necessary for people who believe that waterboarding is illegal to advocate the prosecution of those involved in SERE training. But this nonsense is by far the worst, IMO.

Sure thing retard.

 

[Agnapostate]

Sure thing retard.

Now, ain't that just classic RetardedGayInsurgent right there? Short and sweet! Majestic eloquence for a man of few words!

Oh wait...I meant "stupid," not sweet. Short and stupid.