Advertisement

March 9, 2021
|

Monday, the Court ruled that Georgia Gwinnett College violated the free speech rights of former student Chike Uzuegbunam when it blocked him from sharing his Christian faith.

When he was a student in 2016, he was told that he had to stop sharing his faith unless he moved to one of two “speech zones” that made up less than 1% of the campus. Even after he did, he was twice threatened with discipline by campus police if he continued. His attorneys argued that the only permit required for free speech in America is the First Amendment, and as I keep trying to remind people, the entire country is a “free speech zone,” or should be.

In an opinion written by Clarence Thomas, the SCOTUS ruled that Uzuegbunam’s rights were violated and he can sue the school for damages. This reversed a lower court decision against him that found (stop me if you’ve heard this) that he didn’t “have standing” to sue for what they did to him because he’s no longer a student. I’m not a lawyer, but that sounds to me like saying I have no standing to sue someone who ran over me with a car because I’m no longer in the hospital.

You may be surprised to learn that the decision was 8-1, supported by Justices across the ideological spectrum. You won’t be surprised to hear that the lone holdout was Chief Justice John Roberts who (again, no surprise) argued that since Uzuegbunam was no longer a student, the case was moot. You know, like since the election is over, whether there was fraud or not is “moot.” He said, “Until now, we have said that federal courts can review the legality of policies and actions only as a necessary incident to resolving real disputes,” and “Today’s decision risks a major expansion of the judicial role.”

I’m no fan of judicial activism, but it’s beginning to seem as if Justice Roberts thinks there’s no such thing as a judicial role at all, including defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If he’s going to consider all cases over disputes that happened in the past to be “moot,” that would eliminate the large majority of cases that make it to court.

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

More Stories

Comments 1-5 of 5

  • Paul Wesley Bowen

    03/13/2021 01:00 AM

    Perhaps he could be "impeached" ... whatever is used to remove a Supreme Court Justice who has gone "bonkers" or "totally partisan", such as a refusal to view fraudulent election (which, by the way, IS still ongoing) facts of which are constantly coming out but can't be "reviewed" because it is past. That is BLATANT partisanship on the part of that no-longer-qualified-or-trustworthy judge.

  • Mary Emerson

    03/10/2021 09:00 AM

    ''justice '' Roberts should be removed by popular opinion of the supreme court, even a Democrat-leaning judge appointed by Biden would be better! Roberts has been a disaster , since his visit with Obama? Wonder what he was threatend with?

  • Beatrice LaRue

    03/10/2021 08:39 AM

    Hello again, Gov. Huck,
    Am I reading to much into this case, or does this also mean that all those cases by the Trump Administration and by Trump lawyers, that were thrown out of Court "on Standing", would/will now be able to be heard in entirety?? Won't this case actually set a Precedent for that?? While I understand that we're probably not going to be able to get a real answer to what happened in the 2020 Election, won't this case be a Precedent for any case's going forward?? And with the Dems working hard to ratify HR1, our future Election's are in serious jeopardy IMHO. Think you could address this in a future article??
    Thank You, Bea LaRue

  • Gregory DeAngelis

    03/09/2021 07:54 PM

    It it is moot because he's no longer a student because it took place in 2016...maybe the courts should take action in a more timely manner and not take years to hear it.

  • Lu DeLo

    03/09/2021 04:34 PM

    Whoo-hoot, SCOTUS finally did some good for We the People!!!!

    If ever I could have a few words with CJ Roberts, I really would love to tell him my thoughts on the way He has put We the People last and taken off Lady Justices Blindfold and tilted her scales to the LEFT...AND FOR WHAT, BECAUSE OF HIS HATRED FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP.....AS FAR AS I'M SEE IT, HE (ROBERTS) WILL GO DOWN IN THE HISTORY BOOKS [THAT'S IF HISTORY BOOKS WILL BE PERMITTED BY THE LEFT] AS THE JUSTICE THAT CUT UP THE CONSTITUTION & REPUBLIC AND PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL GO DOWN AS THE PRESIDENT THAT TIRED TO KEEP THE REPUBLIC TOGETHER!