Well, At Least It's Not Another Bakke

Woohooo! We have the cursing cheerleader case.

Held: school did not demonstrate a special interest in suppressing the off-campus vulgarity of student-cheerleader who cussed on Snapchat. Justice Breyer writes for an 8-1 Court. Justice Thomas dissents. https://t.co/MqmKPACTC1 pic.twitter.com/iXAHeZyqIu

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) June 23, 2021

Which went 8-1, but not in the way the numbers suggest. But ifrst, the outrage:

WHY DO WE EVEN PAY YOU PEOPLE pic.twitter.com/kjoY9aw9bo

— DivineSpecialAppearanceHat (@Popehat) June 23, 2021

And the comedy:

Another SCOTUS case that yields a standard that sounds like when I ask my mother-in-law how much mustard goes in her potato salad recipe. “not too much!”

— DivineSpecialAppearanceHat (@Popehat) June 23, 2021

Okay, let's (kinda, sorta) get down to it:

In the cheerleader case, Justice Alito concurs, but writes separately to advance the idea that parents have impliedly consented (on behalf of their children) to relinquish First Amendment rights in public schools. pic.twitter.com/NjRH96GDaY

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) June 23, 2021

Gotta agree; Alito's concurrence is insane.  Makes you wonder what they'll do with something like this (coming soon to a courtroom near you, though this one is from Florida):

At DeSantis’ request, the State Board of Education voted to bar lessons and discussions on the concept of critical race theory and “The 1619 Project.”

None of Florida’s school districts taught the theory before the ban, state education officials acknowledged. But DeSantis, leading up to his reelection bid in 2022, has railed against critical race theory, a legal academic concept that examines systemic racism in American institutions and policies, because he says it is an attempt to indoctrinate children against the United States.

So if I mention the "1619 Project" in a Florida classroom, am I subject to disciplinary action?  Sounds like a 1st Amendment case to me.  And if you remember Gov. Absent wants to put the same measure on the special session agenda (maybe in July, maybe later) even though he supposedly signed a law banning it already, DeSantis is why.  The real decisions as to what is on the curriculum of Texas public schools is made by the Texas State Board of Education.  Gov. Absent obviously feels he doesn't have enough clout there; or he wants to one-up DeSantis by carving his objections into law.

But there's that pesky 1st Amendment again.  Of course, what does he care?  He also claims to have made Texas a "second amendment sanctuary state," which is equally meaningless (who's gonna be the first hapless state official to tell an AUSA they can't enforce the federal ban on felons possessing firearms in Texas?).  But hey, it keeps the elephants (and the black helicopters!) away, right?

*I forgot the explain the title.  When I was studying Con Law, Bakke was still in memory green.  It was a decision on affirmative action where the courts ruled that idea to be constitutional, but the use of racial quotas to achieve it was not.  Yeah, clear as mud.  It also resulted in 8 different opinions, from which one had to stitch together a crazy quilt of a conclusion; not on the holding so much as how the court reached it.  Gordian's knot would be easier to unravel.  The comparisons to the current holding are still valid, IMHLO.