Supreme Court

We generally agree with all the SC decisions handed down this week, except maybe for the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case. We are very ambivalent about that case. Free speech rights are not absolute especially for schoolkids but it is dangerous to decide that this speech is unprotected because it promotes drug use. Maybe he was trying to promote marijuana legalization, a legitimate political issue--exactly the kind of speech that is protected. But even if he admitted that he was trying to promote marijuana use the SC is saying that this is a category of unprotected speech. What other categories of unprotected speech might be created? But again, we're not too worried that this SC will curtail speech rights very drastically so....whatever.
This case and the school integration cases illustrate (at least to us) that the government should not be in the education business at all. These cases would not exist and there would be no need to piss a bunch of people off (granted people who don't understand constitutional law). Schools would be able to do their jobs without being taken all the way to Supreme court by a pothead slacker truant (rumors that we may have fit that description back in high school are nothing but lies!). Private schools would still be prevented from racially discriminating but state and local governments would have no authority to implement racial diversity plans that violate the constitution leading to rulings like this.
We may not agree with all of Chief Justice Roberts' opinions but but they are more in line with the constitution than most of the dissents. The justice we agree with most of the time is Scalia. Anyway, my point is that the SC is not a court of universal grievances to right wrongs and make liberals happy. The SC applies the constitution to the relevant statutes and/or rules under consideration. The result may make no one happy---including the justices who are in the majority. That is why we have a legislative and executive branch and the states--they make laws and constitutional amendments which should be designed to maximize human welfare (not the entitlement payments---the general welfare). If the laws are unconstitutional they can and should be struck down by the SC. Constitutional amendments, of course, are not subject to judicial review.