Again that seems to be taking things a step too far to me. I want a principal who is willing to do what they think is right, even if it is wrong in the end, without worrying that they will loose their house and be unable to send their kids to college if a court disagrees with them.

I think damages are usually excessive in our legal system, and certainly I think those damages should be payed by the state, not the official who is just doing their job, even if they are doing it poorly. Imagine if you screwed up a spread sheet for your company and then suddenly they send you a bill for the cost of fixing the mistake.

I think my favorite (read most thought provoking) part of the SCOTUSblog linked would have to be:

The Chief Justice: “Why is it that the classroom ought to be a forum for political debate simply because the students want to put that on their agenda? Presumably the teacher’s agenda is a little bit different and includes things like teaching Shakespeare or the Pythagorean Theorem, and just because political speech is on the student’s agenda, I’m not sure that it makes sense to read Tinker so broadly as to include protection of . . . that speech.”

I might be wrong, but I had not understood the Tinker doctrine to be of much, if any force, with respect to student speech that is part of classroom discussion. Obviously, what students can say as part of class discussion can be much more regulated by subject matter and even viewpoint than speech in the school setting but outside of class. Cf. Hazelwood (holding that a school has much more leeway to regulate student speech in curricular activities). (As Justice Brennan wrote in his Hazelwood dissent, “under Tinker, the school may constitutionally punish the budding political orator if he disrupts calculus class but not if he holds his tongue for the cafeteria . . . because student speech in the noncurricular context is less likely to disrupt materially any legitimate pedagogical purpose.”)

Again, I don’t know everything about the case, it sounds like there might be other acts which flat out break the due process argument.

And, also, do you feel as strongly about the 1st argument posed by the government? Should officials be held personally responsible for acts they perform on behalf of the government?

What I find less clear cut is the first argument, where Robbin’s position is that the individual official can be held personally accountable (meaning if damages were to be awarded, he would pay them out of his own pocket, not the governments) for acts which did not directly benefit the official, but were taken (misguidedly for sure) on behalf of the government.

I think the second argument is some legalize end run around should they fail in the first argument…

The government’s position in this case was clearly stated as there being neither an implied right of denial of use in the 5th Amendment, nor protection against retaliation by the government. If this goes the government’s way, then it is not only worse than Kelo, but extending that logic (no protection from government retaliation in the Constitution) guts the protection of ALL Amendments.

What would prevent the government from using all means at its disposal to nail you for every ticky-tack violation they can to get you to capitulate on any exercise of your constitutional rights?

> DLS, they are basing their signs
> on the sign in question, which said
> “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS�.

I know that. In this case it is a PR stunt.

It also is stupid. Too many people actually write that way, intentionally, even seriously (beyond a mere matter of [poor] style), rather than as a gimmick or stunt.

(They also misuse “2″ for “to” or “too.”)

The “This is My Land” Case seems to be a bit less clear cut to me, because the ruling in question is NOT the ruling which declares that Robbins has freedom to choose his own easements without fear of retaliation.

Rather, Robbins in turn sued the individual government official which played “hardball” with him. This seems like a fine line to tread, and changes the status quo quite a bit.

For example, the famous Capone case, where Capone was finally indicted on tax evasion rather than the numerous murders etc that he was associated with. A good defense lawyer, if Robbins were to win, would sue the prosecutor personally, saying he had an “intention to extort” Capone by throwing the book at him for a relatively minor charge. Given Robbins, the case could not be thrown out directly, but rather you would have to have some hearing to determine if the “intent to extort” existed or not. That seems like a step too far.

I’m sure there is a way to word the ruling which draws a line between these two types of events, but it would certainly be a tough case to adjudicate.

I really hope that the student wins this one… You are supposed to learn how to think in school, not what to think…

The boy wasn’t on school grounds.

The suspension was only for 10 days.

Couldn’t they just all get along?

If you want to read about a REAL power grab, and hubris of an unbelievable magnitude, check this out: This Is My Land

This really deserves a front page treatment, in the MSM and on TMV, IMHO.

This is even more threatening to everyone’s rights if the government somehow prevails in their argument that there is no ‘right against retaliation by the government’ for asserting your Constitutional Rights against the government.