first

Beauty? Come on, Lat. I wouldn't normally care to comment on someone's looks, but since you brought it up, she's gross.

Portsmouth to $35 and a ham sandwich!

Check this out - Thomas's concurrence - Tinker should be overruled and public school students should have NO FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS WHATSOEVER.

so, ATL doesn't do original content anymore?

"Portsmouth to $35 and a ham sandwich!"

Nice.

Is David Lat gay?

If so - why is he defending the religious right's position??

The religious right hates gays and thinks they are child molesters and would lock them up if they could.

Alito posed for a photo with Andrea Lafferty after he was confirmed. She worked hard to get him confirmed. She runs the Traditional Values Coalition. A virulent anti-gay hate group that has a repugnant linking gay rights activists with child molesters.

"Hey liberals, this Alito guy might not be as bad as you thought."

Or he wants to make sure that students can put Bible verses on signs without fear of censure.

"why is he defending the religious right's position??"

Maybe because he thinks they are correct on that particular issue? There shouldn't be any more to it than that.

Anna Nicole's case before the SC was successful on a very narrow jurisdictional question; in the larger context, her case appears fairly weak. For example, when given the chance to hear all the evidence, the Texas Probate Court ruled against Anna Nicole on every single claim (unlike the California Bankruptcy Court, which prevented the Marshall family from presenting most of its pertinent evidence and thus found in Anna Nicole's favor).

I'm so glad the Portsmouth train is up and running again--let's push it to $50!! With enough posts one of the Bangles will have to give in.

What an incredibly narrowly-tailored stupid holding that appears to be impossible to properly apply. Way to go conservatives! So now everytime a student wants to discuss illegal drugs in school, he or she must make sure that it's very clear that he/she is making a substantive statement predicated on social or political ideology...not one that's, um, unsubstantive based upon, um...?

BONG HITS 4 JESUS, B/C THEY MEDICALLY HELP?

BONG HITS 4 JESUS'S GLAUCOMA.

Lat is not defending the right's position, he's defending the pro-free-speech position (which maybe could be viewed as right/libertarian, but it sounds like the conservatives wanted to go farther than Alito did).

Monmouth Park Racetrack: Fast times at the Jersey Shore!

The Broadway Diner in Red Bank is amazing and wonderful.

I don't agree. This is a "bad" decision. But first let me say I am one of those who has *never* even tried marijuana, and I think illegal (and much legal) drug use is not a wise activity. However, I support the First Amendment 100%, and I, as an adult, quite ironically, had already considered unfurling a banner at every school function that says "Bong Hits 4 U.S. Supreme Court." And Justice Thomas should be impeached for his general hostility to the Bill of Rights.

Lat - Alito's concurrence should placate liberals? What a supremely stupid thing to say. Do you seriously think that we should be happy because Alito is at least to the right of Thomas? Please.

Left of Thomas. Not right. Whatevski.

The credited (and protected) banner is

OVERRULE BONG HiTS 4 JESUS

WINE HiTS 4 JESUS

WINE SiPS that is...

BONG HiTS FOR THOMAS . . . and then dinner at Long Dong Silvers

Whatevski: Actually, considering that Justice Alito was nominated by a Republican President and under a Republican Congress, I would think that liberals should be happy that he is only moderately right-of-center and to the left of the two conservative Justices. Clinton appointed two Justices that were far more to the left than Alito or Roberts are to the right, and that was when his party had a minority in Congress.

Of course, if you are an official member of the Angry Left who believes that Justice Anthony "sodomy is a mystery of human life" Kennedy is a conservative, I wouldn't expect you to be happy with anything.

"Clinton appointed two Justices that were far more to the left than Alito or Roberts are to the right, and that was when his party had a minority in Congress."

Are you kidding? Breyer and Ginsburg are moderate liberals. The only reason people think of them as on the left is because the Court is heavily skewed (7 out of 9) with Republican nominees. No way is either Breyer or Ginsburg near as left as Alito is far right (judging from his SCOTUS opinions so far, which are a small sample). O'Connor was a moderate conservative--Alito is nowhere near her.

I understand that you are a very political person, Fed Soc, but try to take off your partisan blinders and view this from an objective viewpoint.

The only way Ginsburg or Breyer can be considered as closer to the center than Alito or Roberts is if you consider the mainstream to be the Supreme Court's jurisprudence prior to their appointment, as influenced largely by the Warren Court. If you agree, as I do, that the Warren Court's jurisprudence is to the extreme left, then any Justice who does not actively want to overturn much of this jurisprudence would be a leftist.

On virtually every issue, "conservative" justices are only asking that the Constitution not be rewritten to promote the left's agenda, and nothing more. Take abortion, for example. The Constitution says nothing about it and so centrists would maintain that there is no right to abortion. Liberals can make up arguments why it is constitutionally protected; similarly, conservatives could argue that states are required to prohibit abortion on due process or equal protection grounds (this would not be "crazy", especially if you consider that a great deal of people see abortion as murder). If the conservatives on the Court were as far to the right as the liberals are to the left, they would not be content saying that the Constitution is silent on abortion, they would actually say that abortion is clearly prohibited by the Constitution.