It’s going to make a lot of people shake their heads, but it makes you wonder too, does the Daddy-Court of the Land really get to have the final say-so? Ought all good children still continue to eat their peas without pause? Or should something else occur… the thundercloud so many carry inside nowadays, when put together with all other thunderclouds, could make a perfect storm… the kind that cleanses, blows away the dead and dry, makes way for new…

In the meantime, the zeitgeist for today is that Paterfamilias has just nailed its newest proclamations to our doors. The Real New Rules, of how we all ought live, looks like this:

–the Supremes said No to environmentalists (what’s the matter with those gopher-loving, clean-water-worshipping, lovers of things wild anyway? We can all get plenty of the wild by driving on any freeway.)

— No to speech/ images by adolescents,(those pesky teenage individualists, what do they think they’re doing? Trying to grow up in a rat maze made by adults, or something? And besides, how do we know that t-shirt wasn’t advertising Thorazine? And more so, just because you wear a name on a t-shirt does that automatically mean you’ve become what’s on your shirt? If there were true, wouldn’t everyone by now have turned into a schizoid version of Calvin Klein, no! I can’t be Calvin Klein, because I’ve got Johnny Weissmuller underwear on, I must be Johnny Weissmuller, No! I’m wearing Gloria Vanderbilt shoes, I must have turned into a woman when I put them on, No! that can’t be because I am wearing a Hermes scarf, I must be Hermes… )

–No to taxpayers wanting equitable distribution of their taxes because many do not want their taxes to go to support religions they don’t believe or partake in (Yes, those godless Deists and atheists, they oughter read the Constitution. Ahem, mutter mutter another voice: Ah, Sir? the Constitution was written by some who were ah, not Baptists that we know of. Some were even Freemasons. [oh sacre bleu, quick, hide the daughters!).

But, don’t you sometimes wish for a Penultimate Court over the Supremes, an even higher court that could uphold or overturn the lower “Supreme” court? (I can still say things like that in this country right? I mean, without getting “cheneyed” so someone accuses me of ‘terrible thought crimes involving livid imagination”? Yes, I meant to say livid. Is that okay? I mean, I don’t want to be accused of making ‘traitor fries,’ when I only just meant to be making ‘tater fries.’)

And don’t you wish instead of the Supremes cherry-picking amongst which cases they will hear, that at least once a year, they had to take ten cases decided ‘by the people,’ the ballot for which would NOT include any of the ‘litmus test topics’ some Johnny-One-Notes in this country have been forever screeching? diverting us from other matters that really do matter.

Here are the pithy posts the Supreme Court itself posted, in brief, today displaying its work product over these last many months (below). I am taken by the idea in my very small study of the law so far, that the law’s greatest bloodline intent is to keep as much peace as can be had under trying circumstances of persons sometimes hostile to one another, going head to head. But will these bring peace? Or just gather more thunderclouds? And could that be turned to good?

blockquote>In the first of several rulings on the merits, the Court split 5-4 in deciding that a federal agency that is required by law to take a specific action under one federal law does not have to follow the conflicting mandate of the Endangered Species Act. The decision, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., came in National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife (06-340) and a companion case.

In the second decision of the day, also written by Alito and again dividing the Court 5-4, the Justices ruled that taxpayers do not have standing to sue to challenge the White House program on federal aid to faith-based organizations. The Court did not overrule Flast v. Cohen, as two Justices in the majority urged it to do so. The case was Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation (06-157).

The third decision, written by Justice David H. Souter, found over two Justices’ partial dissents that government employees carrying out their official duties and not for personal benefit are not subject to damage claims against them personally based on a lawsuit asserting that they violated the RICO anti-racketeering law or private property rights. The decision came in Wilkie v. Robbins (06-219).

The fourth ruling, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., over three full dissents and one partial dissent, declared that public school officials do not violate a student’s free speech rights by punishing the student for words or actions that promote a drug message. The ruling in Morse v. Frederick (06-278) also should count as a 5-4 decision because Justice Stephen G. Breyer would have decided the case on qualified immunity grounds, and not reach the First Amendment issue.

The Court issued its fifth ruling of the day, concluding that a Wisconsin abortion rights group had a First Amendment right to aid during election season campaign ads that named a candidate running for the Senate. Three of the five Justices in the majority urged the Court to overturn the part of a 2003 ruling that upheld the constitutionality of the federal law restricting such radio and TV ads close to elections. The Chief Justice’s main opinion, joined fully by Justice Alito, said the case did not provide an occasion to revisit that ruling. Justice Souter recited at length from the bench for the four dissenters — who were in the minority in four of the five rulings on Monday. The ruling came in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life (06-969) and a companion case.

tx: helaine