Look at me, Damien! It's all for you.

At first I was a little torn by this story involving a Fifth Grader who was suspended for failing to remove his anti-Obama t-shirt at the school's instructions. I believe very strongly in the First Amendment, even if it's being abused.

But what becomes clear after reading more on this is that the boy's father Dann Dalton is a Grade-A prick.

Dalton was among a group of anti-abortion protesters who marched through an Arapahoe County neighborhood to protest a Planned Parenthood doctor in July 2000, according to a Colorado Springs Gazette story. The protest came in response to a law passed that week by the Arapahoe County Commission that banned “targeted picketing” outside the physician’s home. The picketers, led by Bob Enyart, had been gathering at least once a month in the doctor’s cul-de-sac.

Mr. Dalton argues that this is simply a First Amendment issue with his son Daxx's constitutional rights being violated by the district. The district argues that the rules are in place to keep the focus on *gasp* school by disallowing any sort of speech or behavior that would be disruptive.

Considering Mr. Dalton's own history of lunacy I don't see how the t-shirt can be anything else than an attempt by Dalton to use his son to disrupt the school. His efforts to try and hide behind his son as well as the constitution ring hollow in this instance. He's yelling fire in a crowded theater and then whining when the theater throws him out.

My last girlfriend was a feminist, vegan punk who broke up with me because she thought I was too angry.

Thank goodness Fred Phelps and his horrible Westboro Baptist church finally have to face the music. It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of bigoted, homophobic jerks.

Having said that I'm not personally sure that protesting at the funerals of soldiers, as reprehensible as it is, rises to the level of yelling fire in a crowded theater. I do think there are first amendment questions here that I'm not willing to ignore just because Phelps is an A-grade asshole. It appears to me that Phelps and his church do have a 1st Amendment argument.

Still, it's hard for rationale people not to be smugly satisified at this judgement. Besides gays Phelps has railed against jews, hate speech, patriotism, the Irish and even Swedes. Althhough it's hard to fault him for this last bit. Who would disagree that the world would be a better place with fewer lutefisk-eating death metal-listening Swedes to kick around?

Oh, he's just like any other man, only more so.

Digby pretty much sums up how I feel about the about the Supremes decision yesterday defending the right of the well-to-do to buy our government:

I think we need to start thinking about how to deal with the new era of wingnut judicial activism. If anyone actually thought the Warren Court was activist for trying to right long standing social inequality, they haven't seen anything until they see what John, Clarence, Nino, Sammy and Tony do to expand the rights of rich people and corporations while turning back the clock on everything else. It's going to be a generational battle. I hope everyone realizes this.

I will never forgive Joe Lieberman, Huckelberry, St John and the the rest of the milquetoast losers of that gang of 14. This is on their heads.

That was actually my first thought- "thanks for nothing Gang of 14." It's so wonderful you were able to preserve the filibuster. No doubt it will come to good use the next time a Democratic President wants to nominate a Justice that's halfway sane and Republicans want to keep that person off the court. Conservatives get their way now. Conservatives get their way then. Everything is working well.

As for the money = speech argument I realize that there are tons of liberals that believe adherence to the 1st Amendment is such an absolute that they're willing to see the republic collapse under the weight of corporate dominance of our government. More power to them.

As for myself I tend to believe this country was founded on the principle that no citizen would have a louder voice than another in the public square. If money = speech then this principle is meaningless because the rich will dominate the discourse, as they pretty much do now. But putting that to the precedent that corporations enjoy the rights of citizens under the law continues to leave me shaking my head at the absurdity of that precedent.

The one precedent, I might ad, that the Roberts court appears to be in no danger of overturning.