MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
foxnews.com
The beautiful strains of "Ave Maria" will not echo through the marbled walls of the Supreme Court, nor will arguments, over Justice Samuel Alito's objections, in a case about the playing of the standard at a high school graduation.
On Monday the high court announced it will not hear the appeal of Kathryn Nurre who with other classmates was prohibited from performing an instrumental version of the popular tune at their graduation ceremony from an Everett, Washington high school.
The school's principal after consultation with other officials struck the song from the graduation program. District superintendent Carol Whitehead justified the decision by reasoning that "many people would see [the song] as religious in nature."
Nurre sued the school district claiming its decision violated her constitutional rights. Lower courts have ruled in favor of the district but in their petition to the Supreme Court, Nurre's lawyers contend "the censorship in this case involves political correctness run amuck."
They take issue with the lower court's reasoning that the district's action was justified because of concerns that people would complain about the song in a reprise of an issue raised following a previous graduation ceremony. Nurre's lawyers further argued the school district’s decision justifies the sacrifice of artistic and student expression "to a heckler's veto that seeks to sanitize even the remotest vestige of religion from public life."
Justice Alito announced his disagreement with the high court's decision to stay out of the case by writing the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision "is not easy to square with our free speech jurisprudence."
Lawyers for the school district asked the justices not to take case claiming the Ninth Circuit ruling last year was correct and that the issues presented by Nurre failed to offer the type of significant legal conflict that is normally resolved by the high court. Furthermore it defended the decision as within its authority to maintain "the orderly administration" of education for its students.
The school district concluded its argument to the justices by saying it does not seek "to deprive students of learning opportunities, nor is it seeking to purge altogether religious-inspired works from public education. Instead, it simply sought to provide an atmosphere in which all graduates could celebrate their academic achievements, free from controversial messages....the District simply had no choice but to act as it did, within the confines of the law."
Alito was sharply critical of the school officials and their decision. He said that when the school gives students the opportunity to express themselves they must respect the students' right to free speech. "School administrators may not behave like puppet masters who create the illusion that students are engaging in personal expression when in fact the school administration is pulling the strings," Alito wrote.
The beautiful strains of "Ave Maria" will not echo through the marbled walls of the Supreme Court, nor will arguments, over Justice Samuel Alito's objections, in a case about the playing of the standard at a high school graduation.
On Monday the high court announced it will not hear the appeal of Kathryn Nurre who with other classmates was prohibited from performing an instrumental version of the popular tune at their graduation ceremony from an Everett, Washington high school.
The school's principal after consultation with other officials struck the song from the graduation program. District superintendent Carol Whitehead justified the decision by reasoning that "many people would see [the song] as religious in nature."
Nurre sued the school district claiming its decision violated her constitutional rights. Lower courts have ruled in favor of the district but in their petition to the Supreme Court, Nurre's lawyers contend "the censorship in this case involves political correctness run amuck."
They take issue with the lower court's reasoning that the district's action was justified because of concerns that people would complain about the song in a reprise of an issue raised following a previous graduation ceremony. Nurre's lawyers further argued the school district’s decision justifies the sacrifice of artistic and student expression "to a heckler's veto that seeks to sanitize even the remotest vestige of religion from public life."
Justice Alito announced his disagreement with the high court's decision to stay out of the case by writing the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision "is not easy to square with our free speech jurisprudence."
Lawyers for the school district asked the justices not to take case claiming the Ninth Circuit ruling last year was correct and that the issues presented by Nurre failed to offer the type of significant legal conflict that is normally resolved by the high court. Furthermore it defended the decision as within its authority to maintain "the orderly administration" of education for its students.
The school district concluded its argument to the justices by saying it does not seek "to deprive students of learning opportunities, nor is it seeking to purge altogether religious-inspired works from public education. Instead, it simply sought to provide an atmosphere in which all graduates could celebrate their academic achievements, free from controversial messages....the District simply had no choice but to act as it did, within the confines of the law."
Alito was sharply critical of the school officials and their decision. He said that when the school gives students the opportunity to express themselves they must respect the students' right to free speech. "School administrators may not behave like puppet masters who create the illusion that students are engaging in personal expression when in fact the school administration is pulling the strings," Alito wrote.
You and me kid.
