Bong Hits 4 Jesus?

There were two interesting Supreme Courts decisions today, both were 5-4 decisions, and both clearly indicate that the court will lean right when it’s close. No real surprise there I guess.

The first was a decision in Hein vs. Freedom from Religion Foundation in which the FfRF was attempting to challenge Bush’s Faith Based Initiatives program. The issue was whether or not someone can challenge an executive branch program they believe violates the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause simply because they are a taxpayer.

Normally, one cannot make a legal claim unless one can show a direct injury. The government spending money on a program you disapprove of is not considered a direct injury and you can’t sue simply because a minuscule portion of that money came from your tax dollars. It’s a good rule because otherwise we’d have total chaos. However there is one exception on the books at the moment and that’s related to congressional spending in violation of the Establishment Clause.

In Flast v. Cohen (1968) the Supreme Court held that a taxpayer had standing to challenge congressional assistance to religious schools and in Bowen v. Kendrick (1988) the court held that a taxpayer had standing to challenge grants to religious institutions.The question Hein vs. Freedom from Religion Foundation is whether simply being a taxpayer is enough to confer the legal standing to challenge aspects of Bush’s Faith Based Initiatives program.

This is not a simple question because it’s plain that there are far too many people in this country with too much time, too much money, some very strange ideas and a willingness to sue at the drop of a hat. The fear is that if you extend the exception to the executive branch, it could open the doors for a host of ridiculous lawsuits.

As a matter of fact a number of Amicus Briefs, including one from 11 states, supporting Hein proposed the overturning of Flast as a doctrinal aberration.

Anyway, to make a long story less long, the court held, 5-4, that the FfRF had no standing to sue but they left Flast in place. In dissent Justice Souter questioned the rationale that sees a difference between the legislative branch and the executive branch when it comes to a question of the 1st Amendment.

Clearly Souter has a point. If the Bush Administration can allocate general funds to support religious institutions, what is to prevent a situation where congress allocates “general funds” and the president allocates it to the establishment of religion? Who now has the standing to sue? As a matter of fact, in the case the FfRF "set out a parade of horribles that they claim could occur" unless the court stopped the Bush administration initiative. However Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority said "Of course, none of these things has happened."

No Sammy, they haven’t happened, but given the direction the religious right would like to go, they may if you keep slamming the door on possible avenues for a redress of grievances. Keep this up and I might start a petition to repeal your New Jersey roots.

So what does this have to do with “Bong Hits 4 Jesus?” Well, nothing, except that a decision in a free speech case came out the same day. This was one of those silly cases that somehow take on monumental proportions.

In all started one fine day in 2002. An Alaska high school student displayed a 14-foot-long banner, which read simply “Bong Hits 4 Jesus,” at a school-sanctioned event to watch the Olympic torch make its way through Juneau en route to the Winter Games in Salt Lake City.

The student said he was asserting his right to free speech, although later he admitted that he was trying to get the principal’s goat. The principal interpreted the banner as advocating drug use, which the student denied, and suspended the student.

The court sided with the school principal saying that the school had the right to curtail student speech it saw as undermining its effort to educate about the harms associated with drug use.

Drug use? Apparently a “bong” is a slang term for a water pipe which is commonly used for smoking hash or grass. I didn’t know that, did you? Even with that information it’s a bit hard to see what the hell “Bong hits 4 Jesus” means. This was one of the points made by the defense, the message was nonsensical.

Yeah right, then why not say “Lettuce Hits 4 Jesus?” Clearly the guy knew what a bong was, suspected how the principal would react and did it anyway. I think the court got this one right. There is a limit.