http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-278&friend=nytimes

The link will take you to the opinions in the "bongs hit" decision.  Writ of certiori, majority opinion, concurrences by Thomas and Alito, and dissent by Stevens.  Not an attorney, but rumor has it that i can read, and I do't even move my lips when i do so,  so i took a look per your suggestion.  [Plus, I felt that I owed you for hipping me to DevineDDevin several month earlier.]

Not respecting precedent?  Roberts writes in his opinion :  "Our cases make clear that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 506 (1969). At the same time, we have held that "the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings," Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675, 682 (1986), and that the rights of students "must be 'applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.' " Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U. S. 260, 266 (1988) (quoting Tinker, supra, at 506). Consistent with these principles, we hold that schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use. We conclude that the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending the student responsible for it."  Can it just be that the factual bases of this case were sufficiently different, and posed different free-speech questions, and that the precedents were not binding?  Can it be the reasoning of the majority that that this case fell somewhere between the decisions in Tinker and Fraser?

Roberts writes : "Elsewhere in its opinion, the dissent emphasizes the importance of political speech and the need to foster "national debate about a serious issue," post, at 16, as if to suggest that the banner is political speech. But not even Frederick argues that the banner conveys any sort of political or religious message. Contrary to the dissent's suggestion, see post, at 14-16, this is plainly not a case about political debate over the criminalization of drug use or possession."  

This paragraph by Roberts hardly seems threatening :  " Petitioners urge us to adopt the broader rule that Frederick's speech is proscribable because it is plainly "offensive" as that term is used in Fraser. See Reply Brief for Petitioners 14-15. We think this stretches Fraser too far; that case should not be read to encompass any speech that could fit under some definition of "offensive." After all, much political and religious speech might be perceived as offensive to some. The concern here is not that Frederick's speech was offensive, but that it was reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use."

And finally: "The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."  How many of us really understand what that means in practical terms?

Looking at Aliot's concurrence, he leads with: "I join the opinion of the Court on the understanding that (a) it goes no further than to hold that a public school may restrict speech that a reasonable observer would interpret as advocating illegal drug use and (b) it provides no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue, including speech on issues such as "the wisdom of the war on drugs or of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use..."

He continues : "The opinion of the Court does not endorse the broad argument advanced by petitioners and the United States that the First Amendment permits public school officials to censor any student speech that interferes with a school's "educational mission." See Brief for Petitioners 21; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 6. This argument can easily be manipulated in dangerous ways, and I would reject it before such abuse occurs. The "educational mission" of the public schools is defined by the elected and appointed public officials with authority over the schools and by the school administrators and faculty. As a result, some public schools have defined their educational missions as including the inculcation of whatever political and social views are held by the members of these groups."

Alito concludes :  "Speech advocating illegal drug use poses a threat to student safety that is just as serious, if not always as immediately obvious. As we have recognized in the past and as the opinion of the Court today details, illegal drug use presents a grave and in many ways unique threat to the physical safety of students. I therefore conclude that 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. I join the opinion of the Court with the understanding that the opinion does not endorse any further extension."

OK, now call me complacentand cockeyed, but neither Roberts nor Alito, in these excepts, sound at all like rabid, wild-eyed GOP counterreovolutionay judicial activists intend on the omgoing destruction of American democracy and the perpetual rape and battery of fundamental civil liberties and civil rights.  Both seemed, as far as their writing is an accurate guide, to be pretty sober, reflective, temperate, judicious and judicial -- exactly the traits I think would be a must for any judge at anylevel of gov't, even traffic court.  Mabe especially in traffic court.

But we need to address Doc's political point about a GOP federal judiciary, which I think was the crux of his post. It may be the case that Roberts and company are exactly what Doc fears they are.  Time will eventaully tell.  And looking at Bong Hits in isolation from the other two decisions may be misleading, in that it does not alow as full an inference as the three cases taken as a whole.  But I noticed today that the SC handed down a 5-4 decision resticting the application of capital punishment in cases of, I think, mental incapacity.

So I think we have to say, just now, and always subject to revision, case not proven, we're still examining and weighing the evidence as it  comes in.  And i believe that the SC concludes it's term within the next week, which ill provide a further, and fuller, opportunity for reflection.  But not from me.

BTW, a few month earlier sunsword69 started a trhread re this very case as it was being argued.

I truly was trying to help by asking the questions, dissecting the issues by cutting them in half (thereabouts) helps with the logic if one is left with a smaller bite to chew.
At least for the moment)
With any court decision (especially the SCOTUS) it is enticing to bring one's prejudices into it. Of course you can't avoid them coming into it, but too much and it really makes analysis difficult.

For example your views on the legality of pot should have no bearing on your view points of that decision, unless you were hoping that by some illegal stretch of juris-prudence the SCOTUS would take the opportunity of this case to legalize POT. The fact is that it IS illegal and if you don’t accept that in your review, then you take a turn (right or left, no matter) from which you will not recover.

The Fairness Doctrine? Media, in all its many forms is woven into everyone’s life today to such a degree and in SO many forms that the fairness doctrine of 30 years ago should be DOA. It came from a time when there were only THREE electronic sources for EVRYONE’S news (CBS, NBC, ABC). When opinions hit the airwaves it was for 5 minutes a day. It’s not unreasonable to say under those circumstances that it would be good to give 5 minutes to an opposing view and it was easily self policed. But today, there are opposing views available from multitudes of sources. Pick a media source today and tell me how it’s going to be policed. Show me a view point that isn’t countered, albeit sometimes in another media form.

Squelching illegal behavior, yes. Squelching speech, no.  Do you really think the goal of the banner was to promote illegal drug use rather than jsut geting it on TV when the Olympic torch came by?

""The established standard for prohibiting student speech is that it has to have a disruptive effect.""

I believe that to the case here anyways.