What do you think of the Supreme Court?

When I think of how unfair many things are in the world, I wonder to myself, “How can you fight back? How do you stand up for yourself in this society?” My mind brings me to the courts. But you need purchasing power to truly voice your opinion. That realization is a flaw in the system. When many people who need to utilize the courts, do not have the funds to do so, then things will not operate fairly. People will not be treated equally like our forefathers had envisioned. I think that the Supreme Court, like many other legal entities or systems, has the potential to be extremely beneficial or harmful to our society. To start, our legal system and laws are very complex and I believe it is impossible for one person alone to contain and contemplate the knowledge of law in its entirety. Also, our decisions of what we allow ourselves to do or restrict ourselves from doing when we first formulate our laws, can have unseen consequences. It is the job of the court to follow these concepts and ideas through to the end and to identify and work out conflicts in the system. The Supreme Court ends up being the composed super brain of our nation’s opinions so it should accurately represent our nation’s values and beliefs. Equality on the Supreme Court is something that I am currently in favor of, but I am not sure if it would work properly when taken to an extreme. There are only nine seats and how could you possibly mirror the American population into nine individuals? So far, we have had mostly older white males as Supreme Court Justices since the courts conception, which does not represent America’s population. Further down this train of thought, I come to the conclusion that a Supreme Court Justice gets the final say in this country. Their interpretation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is what decides how our laws work together in the end. So if you really want to change things, you have to become a member of the Supreme Court. But you have to go to college, which requires a hefty amount of money. So basically, without money, you don’t get to be a Supreme Court Justice, and you don’t get to take all of your grievances to court to be examined under an un-biased eye as a citizen either. The concept of the final, tip-top mediator of the land is great when you are writing down the rules of the game, I mean, what sport doesn’t have a referee of some type? But what if there is something else that affects the purity of that referee? There are factors that change the way things are “supposed” to work. That is why we must thrive to have a Supreme Court that truly makes a fair decision based off of multiple perspectives.

7. Dissent

Island Trees v. Pico ended in a 5 to 4 decision in favor of the students. Justice Brennan announced the judgment of the court and stated his opinion which Justice Marshall, White and Stevens concurred, and they were joined by Blackmun who agreed with all but Part II A-1. Burger, Powell, Rehnquist and O' Connor dissented. O' Connor stated, "If the school board can set the curriculum, select teachers, and determine initially what books to purchase for the school library, it surely can decide which books to discontinue or remove from the school library so long as it does not also interfere with the right of students to read the material and to discuss it...I do not personally agree with the Board's action with respect to some of the books in question here, but it is not the function of the courts to make the decisions that have been properly relegated to the elected members of school boards. It is the school board that must determine educational suitability, and it has done so in this case. I therefore join THE CHIEF JUSTICE's dissent. " (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/pico.html) Justice Rehnquist explained, "I disagree with JUSTICE BRENNAN's opinion because it is largely hypothetical in character, failing to take account of the facts as admitted by the parties pursuant to local rules of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and because it is analytically unsound and internally inconsistent...JUSTICE BRENNAN's opinion deals far more sparsely with the procedural posture of this case than it does with the constitutional issues which it conceives to arise under the First Amendment." (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=853)

6. My Argument

This case at first glance seems that it did not need to go to the Supreme Court but the students persisted that the motivation was the Board's dissent of the ideas expressed. People are always going to be worried about government control and administrative agencies seeming to run their lives and I think it is beneficial to society for people to non-violently discuss their disagreements because it inspires education, cooperation and communication. The School Board already had a system in place to judge the content of its library and it is possible people would not have noticed the removal if it wasn't publicized in a local newspaper. Members of the Supreme Court who dissented with Justice Brennan saw the possible dangers of this decision and how the case may distort people's views of the Supreme Court's purpose. Are they meant to be the ultimate censor by judging if the motives of groups are interested in educational suitability? I don't believe so otherwise it would be a waste of time and that is why the precedent needed to be established. The First Amendment does not mention a right to receive ideas, merely a right to freely express your opinions and "inquire" information. Many of the books contained scenes that used small amounts of slang and racial slurs, or scenes that may be seen as somewhat sexually explicit and others were simply controversial in their opinions of founding fathers. In junior high and high schools, I believe that students and teachers should be able to discuss ideas from outside perspectives and examine more than just the story itself. They should promote learning who the author is and when he or she lived and what they experienced and how it affected who they were/are and why they would create the material. It should be a very deep, logical and open-minded environment. I understand that there is separation of church and state and people are protected from bombardment of religious, racist or atheist ideas in school but to prepare for college and life you need to be able to think critically. Focusing on small pieces only to better understand the totality of the idea and how it integrates into history, life and society. So it seems inevitable that the Supreme Court would become involved in a case like this, only to attempt to decide once and for all if this is how it should handle the outlet of information and knowledge in schools. But it also seems unnecessary and unusual that the Federal District Court sided with the School Board's flimsy motives and informal actions to remove the 9 books, 8 of which were optional reading after they had already unnecessarily upset the students enough (by ignoring their opinions) to take them to court.

5. Rule of Law

The Island Trees School Board has a special interest in providing an educationally suitable archive of reading material to their students and they already have regulations in place to decide which books to purchase and keep. The Superintendent stated, "We already have a policy . . . designed expressly to handle such problems. It calls for the Superintendent, upon receiving an objection to a book or books, to appoint a committee to study them and make recommendations. I feel it is a good policy -- and it is Board policy -- and that it should be followed in this instance. Furthermore, I think it can be followed quietly, and in such a way as to reduce, perhaps avoid, the public furor which has always attended such issues in the past." (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0853_ZO.html) The Board removed the 9 books from the library, which has been done before at other schools when someone deems a book inappropriate for minors or a certain grade level, but the students who brought the case to court believed the school's motives were narrow minded and motivated by their disagreement with the ideas written. The Federal District Court in favor of the Board did not see the action as an infringement on First Amendment Rights. But 5 to 4 in the Supreme Court were in favor of the students and Justice Brennan mentioned a right to receive information and saw a limitation on that "right" in the case. They had concluded that, "The law requires that if a book is to be removed, an inquiry must be made to the motivation and intention of the party calling for its removal. If the party's intention is to deny students' access to ideas with which the party disagrees, it is a violation of the First Amendment." ( http://www.thencbla.org/BPOSpages/supremectcase.html) The concurring judges cited Tinker v. Des Moines School District (Pledge), Meyer v. Nebraska (teaching foreign language) and Epperson v. Arkansas (teaching evolution) along with a few other First Amendment cases as supporting precedents in this instance. But not all of the judges agreed.

4. Reasoning of the Court

To start from the beginning, the Island Trees School Board removed several books from the school library. This sort of action is justified by their purpose of organizing an open-minded and efficient educational system in their area. Supporting and acting through Pico, the students brought the school to federal district court. The federal district court had decided in favor of the Board. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the decision. The Board petitioned the Supreme Court. Supreme Court noticed the School Board had singled out a list of books which were not a part of the required curriculum. In the words of the court, "We can reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and grant petitioners' request for reinstatement of the summary judgment in their favor, only if we determine that 'there is no genuine issue as to any material fact,' and that petitioners are 'entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'"
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=853)
Since it is not required reading, but optional reading done in the library, and because the board appears to be motivated by their disagreement with the ideas expressed, their actions may be perceived as the suppression of ideas. Justice Brennan believes that suppressing ideas in this manner goes against the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which is written..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=about_firstamd) The Board of Education was trying to remove materials they considered racist and controversial. In the Supreme Court, the precedence from Tinker v. Des Moines was brought to attention by Justice Brennan that students don't "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech upon entering the schoolhouse gate."(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0853_ZO.html) He also added, "In brief, we hold that local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books..."(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=853)
Marshall, Steven, Blackmun and White concurred with Brennan's decision while Burger, Powell, Rehnquist and O' Connor dissented. (http://oyez.com/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_2043)
Blackmun, although agreeing with all parts except II A-1, wanted to specify his opinion of the First Amendment in this case stating, "I do not suggest that the State has any affirmative obligation to provide students with information or ideas, something that may well be associated with a 'right to receive.'...I do not believe, as the plurality suggests, that the right at issue here is somehow associated with the peculiar nature of the school library..." (http://www.tourolaw.edu/PATCH/Pico/)

3. Decision of the Court

The Island Trees School Board removed nine books from their school libraries and several students responded by challenging the Board's actions in court. In the Federal District Court, the Board won the case. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed in the second circuit. The Supreme Court granted certiorari after a petition by the Board. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the school boards violated the First Amendment and cannot remove books from junior and high school libraries that they disagree with or deem offensive. The Supreme Court had to decide whether or not the School Board's interest to regulate the content of their curriculum overpowered the constitutional right of the 1st Amendment. "Although school boards have a vested interest in promoting respect for social, moral, and political community values, their discretionary power is secondary to the transcendent imperatives of the First Amendment." (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_2043) Here is a quote from Justice O'Connor of the Supreme Court concerning the School Board's powers. "If the school board can set the curriculum, select teachers, and determine initially what books to purchase for the school library, it surely can decide which books to discontinue or remove from the school library so long as it does not also interfere with the right of students to read the material and to discuss it." (http://www.faculty.piercelaw.edu/redfield/library/case-islandtrees.htm) The decision of this case is very important because the time spent during childhood education can be some of the most influential years of learning a human being will ever experience and I believe you should have access to all educational resources possible. Here is yet another quote from the Supreme Court supporting the First Amendment in the case. "Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom - this kind of openness - that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this . . . often disputatious society." (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=393&page=508#508) Justice Brennan added, taking precedence from West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion . . . . If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us." (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=853)

Illicit

Intellectual property theft and illicit trade distorts the systematic way that our world works. Counterfeiting operations affect many different places and people in indirect ways. Knock offs can provide money to criminal syndicates through the networks that are created to move goods into and out of countries. The authorities are also well aware that if these illegitimate trade routes can move “non-dangerous” products without being detected, they are fully capable of moving human organs, guns, drugs, and possibly even more dangerous weaponry such as biological or nuclear components. Illicit trade also involves bribery on a mass scale which gradually corrupts entire countries of individuals into criminal lifestyles. People are neglected and used to sell and buy these synthetic materials which are often composed of harmful substances that can permanently damage your health or even kill you. The fact that the hundreds of people who died in Panama can be directly linked to counterfeit commerce in specific cities should say how dangerous this problem can really be. Those deaths were caused by the sale and dispersion of cheap, generic medication that is constantly being manufactured in the underground crime world. If there are people out there capable of sleeping at night when these deaths can be linked back to their actions, I’m sure their conscience won’t stop them from chasing after that few extra billion they could make in advanced weaponry. Not to mention, the opportunities that arise for mugging and identity theft of tourists and foreigners who plan on purchasing these items in bulk for their own monetary gain. It is obvious that these intelligent criminals are using the ignorance and desperation of others to meet their goals and it is sickening to see these operations flip justice systems on their head while completely ignoring the existence of moral law.