pudge's Journal: Why Conservative Judges are, Generally, Good Judges

Because, unlikely more liberal judges like Sandra Day O'Connor, conservative judges are more likely to protect your right to free speech.

Maybe, but...

[pythorlh]

That's a good decision. But why did they restrict the rights in this case [sfgate.com]? When are we going to learn that rights are rights for all, and not just for those that have been given the right to drink?

Re:

[pudge]

That's a good decision. But why did they restrict the rights in this case [sfgate.com]?

They didn't.

When are we going to learn that rights are rights for all, and not just for those that have been given the right to drink?

The student has the right to free speech, but not in school, he doesn't. Just like you don't have the right to free speech in Court, or in Congress.

Re:

[pythorlh]

In my opinion, no public mandated service should legally be allowed to restrict free speech. School is required. The school should not be allowed to restrict speech that is otherwise legal. In addition, in this case, while it was arguably a school event, he was not on school grounds. Likewise, I have problems with searching school lockers, and content control of school newspapers. I can just barely accept the validity of the ridiculous "contracts" they force students to sign before they are allowed int

Re:

[pudge]

In my opinion, no public mandated service should legally be allowed to restrict free speech. School is required.

False, of course: school is not required. Not sure why you think it is.

In addition, in this case, while it was arguably a school event, he was not on school grounds.

That's irrelevant.

Likewise, I have problems with searching school lockers, and content control of school newspapers.

You can have a problem with it, but that is YOUR problem. There's nothing unconstitutional about either one.

I can just barely accept the validity of the ridiculous "contracts" they force students to sign before they are allowed into school sports.

Whether you accept it or not is beside the point, of course. We are talking about law, not what you or I "accept."

Re:

[buffer-overflowed]

The student has the right to free speech, but not in school, he doesn't. Just like you don't have the right to free speech in Court, or in Congress.

Well, not if you use the old liberal justices like Abe Fortas's rulings. For example Tinker v. Des Moines. The original precedent was that speech not for the purpose of disruption, IE: Fire in a crowded theatre, was protected. This has since been narrowed by later rulings.

You *do* have the right to free speech in School. Even this decision referenced Fortas'

Re:

[pudge]

The original precedent was that speech not for the purpose of disruption, IE: Fire in a crowded theatre, was protected.

Again, but not in Court. You can't say whatever you wish there. Or in Congress. The government can legally tell you to shut up.

You *do* have the right to free speech in School.

Not really. You have the right to say SOME things, but not others.

Even this decision referenced Fortas's famous statement that Students do not check their rights at their door when they enter a schoolhouse.

Yeah, but come on: yes, they really do. Else they could say BONG HITS 4 JESUS. And I am fine with checking your rights at the door. That's how it's always been.

The conservative court just drastically narrowed that, by applying an additional test to it, and expanding school jurisdiction outside school.

What additional test? Precedent already said that they could restrict speech that advocated drugs. And this was not "outside school" per se: it's

How is that a free speech issue?

[buffer-overflowed]

Wisconsin Right to Life is incorporated. It has no constitutional rights to violate, since it's a piece of paper in a statehouse. This seems like a basic concept that I would think conservatives would get behind, since it's fundamentally about responsibility, liability, and trade-offs. When you adopt the legal shield of incorporation against liability, the trade off is, and should be, that your rights are not transfered to the construct, since you are shielded from taking responsibility for the actions o

Re:

[pudge]

Wisconsin Right to Life is incorporated. It has no constitutional rights to violate

No, but the members of the group do. And their right to come together as a group to express themselves is violated.

When you adopt the legal shield of incorporation against liability, the trade off is, and should be, that your rights are not transfered to the construct, since you are shielded from taking responsibility for the actions of the construct.

Sorry, I couldn't care less about that. If I am a member of a group like this, I do it so that I can make my voice heard. That is the purpose of it. And that purpose is protected by the First Amendment, where it is stated that we have the right to assemble. The point of assembling is to come together as a group of people to make some sort of a point. That is why it is in the First Amend

Re:

[buffer-overflowed]

That's the trade-off to the limitied liability of incorporation, your individual rights are traded for the reduction or elimination of liability. The corporation is it's own legal entity, a person that is not a person, under the law, and it takes extreme actions to breach that corporate shield. You can't have it both ways, responsibility for your actions is one of the cornerstones of freedom, and an incorporated PAC can act with *wild* abandon, while the contributers to that PAC are shielded from the cons

Re:

[pudge]

You can't have it both ways

Again, I am not. Again, see the Constitution. Right to assembly. You don't sign that away when you become a "corportation."

There are tons of ways for people to assemble and express themselves that don't require incorporation.

The Constitution doesn't say "right to assembly, except for Limited Liability Corporations."

And yes, in my opinion, your rights do not *EVER* transfer to a construct simply because your money has.

Then there IS no right to assembly. The right to assembly IS a transferral of rights from the individuals to the group.

Re:

[buffer-overflowed]

Yes, you do. A corporation is a special construct under the law that is effectively a third, independant party. But it's not a person, and does not enjoy the constitutional rights of a person, only whatever statutory rights we decide to allow. You eschew liability because of this. And because of this you have very limited responsibility for the actions of the third party. You do not extend your rights to a third party simply by giving it/him/her money.

And I never said you couldn't form an LLC, which wo

Re:

[pudge]

it's not a person, and does not enjoy the constitutional rights of a person

The right to assembly is a COLLECTIVE right. So, I am not talking about the constitutional rights of a person, but of a group. I think you're wrong that groups have no rights; our courts have consistently interpreted the right to assemble as tied closely to the right to petition, to petition as a group. It's the way the system was designed: we have a stronger voice collectively than individually, and it's why there's no semicolon between the right to aseemble and the right to petition, because they are

Re:

[buffer-overflowed]

The relevant difference is that upon incorporating you form a third party. A perpetual legal entity, that is in effect a person. It is no longer a group of people, but rather it's own person acting on it's own accord. *THAT* is the relevant distinction.

Re:

[pudge]

Oh, come one. If it IS a person, then it DOES have those rights!

Re:

[jdavidb]

If I can't decide what to do with something, then I don't own it.

If I can't delegate my rights, then I don't own them, and therefore I don't have rights.

Re:

[pudge]

Good point.