School Rules

Apparently, it's school rules day. Earlier it was "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." Now it's wearing a Muslim veil. The UK government says it will "leave it up to individual head teachers to decide what pupils should and should not be allowed to wear in class." I think that makes sense. There has to be some limit to religious freedom in schools. (Presumably, we would not allow Christian Scientist children to refuse medicine when sick.) The veil is a difficult issue for which to balance all the factors, but I can see legitimate reasons for prohibiting it. Whether I would prohibit it myself as principal would depend on the specific school situation, though.

Bong Hits 4 Jesus

I've been struggling to figure out what I think about the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case. If the student in question had been in school, I think the principal would have been within her powers to suspend him. I would give school administrators wide latitude to restrict speech in schools. The main purpose of schools is education, and I think administrators should be able to ban anything that can be reasonably said to undermine the educational purpose.

However, the kid was not in school. He was across the street.

There was a connection to a school-sponsored event, though.

On the other hand, does "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" really undermine a school's educational purpose?

Usually I have strong feelings on these things. Here, though, I'm lost.

Andrew Sullivan on Mitt Romney

Andrew Sullivan quotes Mitt Romney as saying: "We need to have a person of faith lead the country." Sullivan then asks:

How is that not a religious test for the presidency?

Um, because it's a campaign slogan, not a government act. (I agree with Sullivan on the substantive point, though. I'm just nit-picking on the legal one.)

ADDED: Someone should ask Romney, "Why do we need to have a person of faith lead the country"? I'd like to hear his answer.

Banning Sex Toys

The ACSBlog reports:

the Eleventh Circuit held today that an Alabama law banning the sale of sex toys is not unconstitutional, on the grounds that Alabama has an interest in preserving "public morality" against the sale of such devices. The challenged law prohibits only the sale of devices "primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs." It does not forbid their use or possession.

This is a decision that seems like it should concern me, but it just doesn't. It's a stupid law, no doubt about that. But should courts prohibit legislatures from passing stupid laws? That seems like a difficult standard to enforce. The more likely approach is to develop new conceptions of "rights" to prevent specific laws from being passed. To me, that seems even more dangerious than the stupid laws themselves. At least I can vote out the legislators.

The Supreme Court Takes on Global Warming

The Supreme Court will hear arguments this week in a case that addresses the questions of:

"Whether the EPA Administrator has authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other air pollutants associated with climate change under [the Clean Air Act]"

and

"whether the EPA Administrator may decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles based on policy considerations not enumerated in [the Clean Air Act]"

As I understand it, the basic issue is whether the 1970 Clean Air Act covers air pollution from carbon dioxide, which is thought to lead to global warming (and was clearly not in the minds of the legislators at the time because no one thought there was global warming back then). The Supreme Court has to determine whether carbon dioxide is covered by the terms of the statute.

To me, this seems like an awful way to make policy. The better way to determine whether Congress wants carbon dioxide covered is to have Congress legislate on the matter now. Don't ask the Supreme Court to apply legislation drafted in1970 to a 1990s issue. Sure, they can make up an answer, but it's going to be very unsatisfying reasoning whichever way it comes out.

The Death Penalty and Lethal Injection

Opponents of the death penalty are engaged in a multi-faceted attack on the practice. One aspect of their fight is an attempt to have certain methods of carrying out the death penalty declared unconstitutional as "cruel and unusual punishment." In Kentucky, a particular lethal injection method was challenged on the basis that the drug formula used "causes inmates to feel pain and is therefore cruel and unusual punishment." In a unanimous opinion, the Kentucky Supreme Court rejected the challenge. In doing so, it stated:

"It is not the role of this Court to investigate the political, moral, ethical, religious or personal views of those on each side of this issue. ... We are limited in deciding only whether the method defined by the Legislature and signed into law by the Executive, survives constitutional review," ...

The lawyers for the two men convicted say they will ask for a rehearing or will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I never know quite what to make of this kind of challenge. My assumption is that the claims are not based on a feeling that the particular death penalty method at issue is bad, but another one might be OK. Rather, it's just an attempt to get all methods declared unconstitutional. This seems a bit disingenuous, but I suppose it's a reasonable thing to do if you're on death row or if you think the death penalty should be abolished.

On the specific legal issue, I don't see how lethal injection could be considered either "cruel" or "unusual." It's certainly not cruel in comparison to the alternatives (electrocution, anyone?). And it's not unusual either.

As a result, I'm not convinced this is a productive approach for death penalty opponents. If they were to win, it would seem like they won on a technicality, and could create quite a backlash. I think their best bet is to try to undermine support for the death penalty among the populace more generally.