Okay, so a few people have started talking about this Appeals Court Ruling by Judge Sotomayoooor (love the way the news people push the pronounciation of anything they haven't experienced before, making them look more "authentic"). Here's the deal, this teenage in a gub-ment school was angry that a "battle of the bands" she organized got cancelled by hte administration. She called them "d-bags" (obviously a euphimism for Adam Ant's song Duesche Bags, which was a sequel to Duesche Girls...), and then the administration retaliated buy not allowing her to run for school government. So, she sued on first amendment grounds.

Welllllll, as you might guess, the Judge so often identified with leftism and "free speech" ruled that the school had a (yeah, the typical drivel that gives government power over anything) "compelling state interest" in retaliating, because, the "student's off-campus blog remarks created a 'foreseeable risk of substantial disruption' at the student's high school."

Again, we see that "rights" (supposedly sacrosanct and untouchable, hence the definition as "RIGHTS", cannot coexist with government. They cannot be utilized fully, because the government "manages" rights in order to function.

But there is something else to notice here. In all the debates over this, few, if any, "experts" have mentioned something (something that Judge Sotomayoooor certainly did not mention). That is this: The Second Amendment only proscribes CONGRESS from creating speech codes, it was understood that the states COULD institute speech laws,a dn they had them on the books for decades after the Constitution was written. Now, we don't LIKE that, and find it reprehensible that ANY government would curtail speech, but as far as Constitutional law is concerned, that's just the way it is. The key woudl be to see if state law or local statute allowed for this, but that is not where the court went on it. The entire way the courts look at speech laws now has nothing to do with what the Constitution actually says -- another indication that written constitutions don't constrain the thirst for power.

Here's the story!

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Critics-unhappy-with-Sotomayors...

 Be Seeing You!