Shirty Reasoning

Over the last week or so, high school twits have been the subject of Supreme Court rulings — and I think that the Court got them both wrong.

Now, I’m no lawyer or legal scholar or anything, and I’m sure that the Court had very sound rationales for their decisions — but they don’t pass my common sense test.

And that depends solely on the classic cliche’: location, location, location.

In the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case, the student was punished for holding up a banner across the street from his school. In the anti-Bush shirt, the student was disciplined for wearing the shirt to school.

To me, the school’s authority pretty much ends at the edge of the school grounds. There are exceptions, when the students are participating in a school-sanctioned event.

The student in question (who really doesn’t need any more attention) by mentioning his name) had not gone to school that morning. He was not technically “attending” school at the time, so I think that the school didn’t have the authority to discipline him.

In the other case, the twit wore an anti-Bush t-shirt that featured drugs and alcohol to the school. In that case, the school had every right to enforce its dress code and ban a potentially-disruptive item of apparel.

The court ruled differently. They upheld the Bong Hits 4 Jesus sanction, but protected the anti-Bush one.

I guess common sense is not always compatible with high legal theory.

Bad News for Hillary: 52% of Americans Won't Vote for Her No Matter What
Supreme Court Rules that School Can't Censor Anti-Bush Shirt