Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

[ohio jones]

I don't view "the government" as some sort of universal unitary blob with tentacles everywhere, that under the control of some master strategy or cabal operating behind the scenes and pulling strings like the Wizard of Oz.

Personally I suspect this is just one small brick in a larger plan by the Supreme Court to roll back the regulatory power of the government.

Somehow the Supremes don't seem unified enough, in general, to have a master strategy behind the scenes.

[Ken]

I don't view "the government" as some sort of universal unitary blob with tentacles everywhere, that under the control of some master strategy or cabal operating behind the scenes and pulling strings like the Wizard of Oz.

Personally I suspect this is just one small brick in a larger plan by the Supreme Court to roll back the regulatory power of the government.

Somehow the Supremes don't seem unified enough, in general, to have a master strategy behind the scenes.

I think the conservative majority most certainly has a unifying political philosophy. I just don't think it is the anti-abortion one that the conservative religious community expects. I think they are more interested in dismantling or rolling back the power of the regulatory state writ large. And most of their recent rulings fall into that framework.

[temporal1]

This ruling is strictly about whether the GOVERNMENT as represented by public school administrators can regulate speech in areas outside of its normal authority (within the school itself, and on school administered or school-related forums and platforms).

This ruling has nothing to do with whether or not PRIVATE ENTITIES like employers, private schools, churches, or parents can regulate speech. The First Amendment is about government regulation of speech, not private entities.

So yes, private entities like employers can continue to regulate the speech of their employees on public forums outside of work, and can fire people if they do things like make inflammatory posts on Facebook or Twitter that reflect badly on the employer. This ruling does not change that. You can still get fired for for what you post on Facebook. Nothing about this ruling changes that if you work for a PRIVATE employer. But there may be implications if you work for a public employer.

Private schools like religious schools can also continue to enforce whatever ethical and moral codes of conduct that they wish both inside and outside of school, including vulgar speech on public forums, and discipline their students as they see fit. This ruling does not change that. Private schools can discipline students for basically any reason they want.

And parents have ALWAYS had complete authority to regulate their children's behavior on social media, as well as their access to it. This ruling does not change that either.

The only thing this ruling does is limit the ability of the GOVERNMENT (public schools) to regulate speech that occurs outside of its sphere of responsibility.

Okay, that’s great. Maybe as good or even better in some ways.

Yes. The distraction or confusion about this case was because the subject was rather distasteful and trivial.
Some spoiled cheerleader was shooting her mouth off in public in a vulgar manner and got punished for it.

But as with most Supreme Court cases, the issues and fundamental rights involved were much larger.
And that is why the Supreme Court took the case in the first place (out of the tens of thousands of appeals that they get every year). And why they ruled 8-1 in favor of restricting the power of the government in this case.

Personally I suspect this is just one small brick in a larger plan by the Supreme Court to roll back the regulatory power of the government. Some of which I will probably agree with as in this case. Some of which I probably won't (for example rolling back environmental regulation).

But I wouldn't look at is as some random stand-alone case that is unrelated to larger issues. The Supreme Court rarely works like that. They make a narrow uncontroversial ruling in one area.

And then incrementally rely on it as precedent to extend the same principles to other areas.

Creepy incrementalists; fully cognizant and supportive, through the Bar Association, central to their members above all, of how human law schools instruct and graduate new classes of creepy incrementaists every year. We are “here.”
It’s sad how similar the world is today to the world Jesus was born into. Shameful, really.

I don't view "the government" as some sort of universal unitary blob with tentacles everywhere, that under the control of some master strategy or cabal operating behind the scenes and pulling strings like the Wizard of Oz.

Personally I suspect this is just one small brick in a larger plan by the Supreme Court to roll back the regulatory power of the government.

Somehow the Supremes don't seem unified enough, in general, to have a master strategy behind the scenes.

No matter.
As long as she defaults to being a militant (protected class) she will suffer no consequences, in school, socially, or in employment. Align, or lose your business. Already well underway. Bullying on steroids. By force of the sword.

My opinion is she is a minor being exploited by her parents and political blocs for the purpose of commandeering laws of the land.
Children rarely or never initiate lawsuits on their own.

The blocs are law-savvy, desiring legal gold: legal precedent - just as Ken describes.
They use “logical” language to deceive. It’s hard to impossible to out-talk evil. Buyer beware.

There is no case TOO TRIVIAL to not have golden value for future legal precedent.
The innocent+trusting deserve to be aware of the underlying game plan of many of these “trivial,” remote, isolated cases.
Rulings will be exploited for every ounce of evil imaginable. THAT’s THE PLAN. Taught in expensive law schools.

[Ken]

Okay, that’s great. Maybe as good or even better in some ways.

Yes. The distraction or confusion about this case was because the subject was rather distasteful and trivial.
Some spoiled cheerleader was shooting her mouth off in public in a vulgar manner and got punished for it.

But as with most Supreme Court cases, the issues and fundamental rights involved were much larger.
And that is why the Supreme Court took the case in the first place (out of the tens of thousands of appeals that they get every year). And why they ruled 8-1 in favor of restricting the power of the government in this case.

Personally I suspect this is just one small brick in a larger plan by the Supreme Court to roll back the regulatory power of the government. Some of which I will probably agree with as in this case. Some of which I probably won't (for example rolling back environmental regulation).

But I wouldn't look at is as some random stand-alone case that is unrelated to larger issues. The Supreme Court rarely works like that. They make a narrow uncontroversial ruling in one area.

And then incrementally rely on it as precedent to extend the same principles to other areas.

Creepy incrementalists; fully cognizant and supportive, through the Bar Association, central to their members above all, of how human law schools instruct and graduate new classes of creepy incrementaists every year. We are “here.”
It’s sad how similar the world is today to the world Jesus was born into. Shameful, really.

I don't view "the government" as some sort of universal unitary blob with tentacles everywhere, that under the control of some master strategy or cabal operating behind the scenes and pulling strings like the Wizard of Oz.

Personally I suspect this is just one small brick in a larger plan by the Supreme Court to roll back the regulatory power of the government.

Somehow the Supremes don't seem unified enough, in general, to have a master strategy behind the scenes.

I'm just describing how I think the Supreme Court actually operates. Not that I agree with the path they are on.

And yes, change within the legal realm is almost always incremental and built brick by brick with one legal precedent after another. This is obvious if you read any legal review article or legal decision at all. They endlessly cite precedent.

[temporal1]

USSC rulings used to generally represent “the end” to controversy. The court would rule, matters were generally accepted as closed.
No more.

Today, all court rulings are subject to appeals, rulings often become just the beginning of legal battles.
Law schools, the Bar Asoociation, rejoice! Employment security. Money in the bank.

Ordinary people can, at least, hope to recognize patterns. Jesus does not lead to futile paths.

[ken_sylvania]

USSC rulings used to generally represent “the end” to controversy. The court would rule, matters were generally accepted as closed.
No more.

Today, all court rulings are subject to appeals, rulings often become just the beginning of legal battles.
Law schools, the Bar Asoociation, rejoice! Employment security. Money in the bank.

Ordinary people can, at least, hope to recognize patterns. Jesus does not lead to futile paths.

You have got to be kidding, right?

[Ken]

USSC rulings used to generally represent “the end” to controversy. The court would rule, matters were generally accepted as closed.
No more.

Today, all court rulings are subject to appeals, rulings often become just the beginning of legal battles.
Law schools, the Bar Asoociation, rejoice! Employment security. Money in the bank.

Ordinary people can, at least, hope to recognize patterns. Jesus does not lead to futile paths.

I think you mischaracterize how things were in the past.

1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford (return of escaped slaves in free states)
1896 Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal doctrine)
1905 Lochner v. New York (labor rights)
1927 Buck v. Bell (involuntary commitment and forced sterilization)
1931 Near v. Minnesota (obscenity laws)
1954 Brown v. Board of Education (segregated schools)
1963 Gideon v. Wainright (right to counsel)
1966 Miranda v. Arizona (right to silence and coerced confessions)
1970 Roe v. Wade (abortion)

Were all hugely controversial and subject to endless appeal, foot-dragging, and legal battles, some of which continue today. That isn't anything new.

[Robert]

USSC rulings used to generally represent “the end” to controversy. The court would rule, matters were generally accepted as closed.
No more.

Today, all court rulings are subject to appeals, rulings often become just the beginning of legal battles.
Law schools, the Bar Asoociation, rejoice! Employment security. Money in the bank.

Ordinary people can, at least, hope to recognize patterns. Jesus does not lead to futile paths.

I think you mischaracterize how things were in the past.

1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford (return of escaped slaves in free states)
1896 Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal doctrine)
1905 Lochner v. New York (labor rights)
1927 Buck v. Bell (involuntary commitment and forced sterilization)
1931 Near v. Minnesota (obscenity laws)
1954 Brown v. Board of Education (segregated schools)
1963 Gideon v. Wainright (right to counsel)
1966 Miranda v. Arizona (right to silence and coerced confessions)
1970 Roe v. Wade (abortion)

Were all hugely controversial and subject to endless appeal, foot-dragging, and legal battles, some of which continue today. That isn't anything new.

Yes, there has always been more litigation, but culturally, more people tended to accept the SCOTUS rulings and decided. Today, everyone sees that it is just a liberal or conservative judge away from getting their way and overturning the decision. The SCOTUS has become quite political.

Recently, there has been several rulings that has validating the individual and corporate right of the 1st amendment. The government has encroached on all areas of it, and they have been now pushed back. Without the 1st Amendment, this would not have happened and we would have seen more overreach by the government.

Again, the purpose of the first 10 amendments was to limit government, not the individual.

[temporal1]

Robert:
Yes, there has always been more litigation, but culturally, more people tended to accept the SCOTUS rulings and decided.

Today, everyone sees that it is just a liberal or conservative judge away from getting their way and overturning the decision.
The SCOTUS has become quite political.

Recently, there has been several rulings that has validating the individual and corporate right of the 1st amendment.
The government has encroached on all areas of it, and they have been now pushed back. Without the 1st Amendment, this would not have happened and we would have seen more overreach by the government.

Again, the purpose of the first 10 amendments was to limit government, not the individual.

i agree with “culturally” above, i was thinking more of specifically Christian understanding of respect for gov/court decisions, submission, etc. formerly, Christian ethics were more part+parcel of the overall culture.

Ken Miller well represented Christian ethics in his experience.
in this thread, RZehr represents Christian desire to accept legal decisions on face value, with hope for an authentic decision to have resulted.

this is now replaced with abject love of human law, which has no such respect - for ANY given decision. there is no face value.
appeals are expected. in some cases, appeals are required. law schools now teach appeals, not respect and submission.
law schools teach exploitation of every ruling, AND, legal precedent, to advance unending legal disputes.

as a generalization, this (the mentality of our litigious society) is a far cry from Christianity.

liked or not, i recall when USSC rulings were pretty much respected as FINAL. this is no more.

[temporal1]

USSC rulings used to generally represent “the end” to controversy. The court would rule, matters were generally accepted as closed.
No more.

Today, all court rulings are subject to appeals, rulings often become just the beginning of legal battles.
Law schools, the Bar Asoociation, rejoice! Employment security. Money in the bank.

Ordinary people can, at least, hope to recognize patterns. Jesus does not lead to futile paths.

You have got to be kidding, right?

i just noticed this. i don’t understand your question.