Supreme Court

So the Supreme Court will be meeting soon and that always interests me. Pasted below is a brief summary of the major cases from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/10/05/MNR119VTSS.DTL

My reaction to the cases will follow:

Campaigns: Whether federal and state laws that ban corporate and labor union contributions to political campaigns and political parties violate freedom of speech.

Guns: Whether the Second Amendment, which the court interpreted to guarantee an individual's right to own guns for self-defense, applies to state and local governments.

Cross: Whether an 8-foot cross in the Mojave National Preserve is an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

Animals: Whether a federal law making it a crime to possess images of cruelty to animals violates freedom of speech.

Terrorism: Whether federal laws that make it a crime to give "material support," including legal training and medical aid, to groups designated as terrorist organizations are unconstitutionally vague or over broad.

Juveniles: Whether a state can sentence juveniles to life without the possibility of parole for crimes other than homicides, such as rape or robbery.

....

Campaign finance: In a society where voters make decisions based upon emotional sentiment rather than responsible citizenship how much money allowed directly into national campaigns is a non-issue. Big money (corporations and unions) still spends a lot of money by contributing to non-profits which let us know that Sen. Kerry was a coward, Gov.Palin is a nut job and if you vote this way the terrorists won.

I see no compelling reason to change this particular limit and no compelling reason to hold fast to it. A responsible citizen informs themselves and is resistant to propaganda voting intelligently for the good of their conscience, family and nation. Where these responsible citizens exist money has a limited influence. Where these responsible citizens are overshadowed by consumer conformist no campaign reform can save democracy.

Guns: This case is a refinement of a recent SC decision to forbid D.C. from banning all citizen gun ownership. Based on a constitutional argument gun ownership must be protected. "A well armed citizenship is the best defense from tyranny" or so the argument goes. I support some forms of limitation of gun control but agree with the precedent of the previous ruling which forbids any universal ban.

Cross: I understand two broad ways of interpreting the First Amendment's religious clause: pluralist or secular. The first says that legally all religions (*"most all" not "all all") must be tolerated in the public arena. The second says that all religions are forbidden in the public arena. My understanding of this case (and most of the similar recent cases) are from the secular interpretation. The cross cannot be allowed on publicly funded land because no religious artifact is to be allowed on any public function because allowing the statement "In God we trust" on a dollar bill is equivalent to a state religion.

I tolerate the idea of a pluralist society because I recognize the necessity for toleration in a democracy but have no respect for the secular position. If the case was challenging that the Christian symbol was given competitive edge over some other local religion I might side with the case but to say that you just can't have a religious symbol on government property I reject.

Animal: Nah, besides would it apply to PETA's anti-meat propaganda too? There would have to be strong, thoroughly reviewed almost uncontested scientific support that possession of such images resulted in further crimes. This isn't child pornography we are talking about.

Terrorism: I don't know if the laws are over-broad or vague but strongly believe that criminal laws should be specific and clear even if they involve terrorism.

Juveniles: I think that would fall under cruel and unusual punishments.