Roberts's rule: Conservative but incremental

In a case arising from a Juneau, Alaska high school student’s unfurling of a “Bong Hits 4Jesus” banner at a school-supervised event, Roberts wrote the majority opinion which held that the school principal’s disciplining of the student did not violate his First Amendment rights.

The principal, Deborah Morse, “thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one,” wrote Roberts.

If she had failed to act, Roberts said, it would have sent “a powerful message to students in her charge… about how serious the school was about the dangers of illegal drug use.”

Taking a more cautious line, Alito wrote a concurring opinion which explained that it was only because “speech advocating illegal drug use poses a threat to student safety” that he was willing to vote on Morse's side, and against the student, Joseph Frederick.

Alito made a point of noting when it came to political speech, students had broad First Amendment rights, as set forth in the court's landmark 1969 decision, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School district.

Supreme Court Fact Finder Explore related facts (launches window): Profiles: Nine justices who have the say The ideological evolution of 6 justices 10 landmark decisions Supreme Court superlatives Supreme Court nominations by president Justice O'Connor's swing vote clout How your senator voted on John Roberts How your senator voted on Samuel Alito

The Tinker decision, written by liberal Justice Abe Fortas, upheld students' right to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam war.

“The public schools may ban speech advocating illegal drug use. But I regard such regulation as standing at the far reaches of what the First Amendment permits,” he wrote.  

Thomas seeks to overturn 1969 precedent
But the incrementalism of Roberts and the caution of Alito didn't set well with the outlier on the court, Justice Clarence Thomas.

In his concurrence to the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” ruling, Thomas said the court should simply overturn the Tinker ruling.

As he often does, Thomas argued for a return to the original understanding of what the First Amendment meant. "As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools," he said.

“Early public schools gave total control to teachers, who expected obedience and respect from students,” he noted.

Thomas said if parents found rules imposed by administrators on students too strict, “They can seek redress in school boards or legislatures; they can send their children to private schools or home school them; or they can simply move.”

No legal standing to sue
In the third big case handed down Monday, Alito wrote for the majority that taxpayers did not have legal standing to file a suit challenging Bush’s Faith-Based and Community Initiatives program on the ground that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

“The Supreme Court just put a big dent in the wall of separation between church and state, and a big smile on Pat Robertson’s face,” commented Ralph Neas, head of People for the American Way, in response to that decision.

“Today’s ruling will make it more difficult for citizens whose tax dollars are being unlawfully spent to subsidize religion to bring a complaint in court,” he said, calling the ruling “a wake-up call to Americans about the importance of the Court and future nominees.” Neas and his group opposed the confirmation of both Alito and Roberts.

The three high-profile decisions handed down Monday were also significant in that the "swing vote" on the high court, Justice Kennedy, sided with the conservative wing in each ruling.

The dissenting justices were almost the same in all three big decisions announced Monday.

In the campaign finance case and the decision on taxpayer standing to challenge faith-based initiatives, the dissenting justices were Breyer, Souter, John Paul Stevens, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, likewise in the faith-based initiatives decision.

In the Alaska high school case, Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg dissented with Breyer concurring in part and dissenting in part.

MORE FROM POLITICS

Politics Section Front

NYT: Dems begin selling tour in Pa. McCain praises VP choice Palin's 'tenacity'   All-out battle for women's votes Roe v. Wade makes campaign comeback Palin faces ethics investigations in Alaska Brownstein: Obama should turn page on '92 playbook Palin is McCain's boldest gamble Obama embarks on 67-day sprint to election Obama blasts Bush’s ‘failed presidency’ Obama's convention speech Politics Section Front   Add Politics headlines to your news reader: