The Supreme Court allows a Georgia Gwinnett College student, Chike Uzuegbunam, to pursue his free speech and freedom of religion case against the school, even though he’s not seeking monetary damages, and the college has already cancelled its offending policy. The college stopped the student from preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ outside of its designated ‘free speech zones’. Lower courts ruled the case moot since the policy already changed. By a vote of 8-1, the Supreme Court said the principles still matter even if the damages sought amount to just $1.
Scott Ott, Stephen Green and Bill Whittle create 20 new episodes of Right Angle each month thanks to our Members. Join us now at https://BillWhittle.com
Video below hosted at Rumble.
21 replies on “Freedom of Speech and Religion Case Lives Thanks to Supreme Court $1 Decision”
One would have thought that they could have taken up several cases on “principle” like voter rights for instance.
But… but … but if the court were to award the student, say $109.45, then he could afford to become a member of BWDC and share his experience and feelings with us.
Or $1M so he could donate to whatever religious and non-religious charities he so chose.
Or maybe even $10M or so and he can set up his own competing college and put these unconstitutional ignorant fools out of business? Or maybe that would not be charitable. But wouldn’t that fall into the financial category of “spare the rod and spoil the child”?
“Conservatives” really need to stop using leftist talking points to make their arguments. Give Hitler and the Nazis a rest; quit breathing life into this dead vanquished foe from many years ago. If you argue from a leftist morality then you will always lose because YOU are the Devil in that ethos.
(The only reason the judgement was a ha’p’ny was because they no longer used farthings.)
Spare the rod and spoil the
childuniversity.We do no good and often much harm if we let people continue on a path of self destruction. I usually don’t like large monitary judgements against companies or governmental bodies (Minnie settlement with George Floyd’s family today, I wonder how long it will take the family to go broke) because the money tends not to come from bad actor but instead from everyone else. Letters in files of everyone responsible, potentially promotions without raises according to the employer or something likewise would be more appropriate.
I find it interesting that Roberts – RINO that he is – dissented because he believes that SCOTUS has set a precedent by allowing this case to go forward though the plaintiff asked for only a nominal sum in punitive damages. In other words, Roberts would have been fine with this case had the student asked the court for $5 million in punitive damages.
Roberts apparently believes that principles aren’t worth fighting for unless there’s a big dollar amount involved.
Roberts is scum. And the fact that the other 8 SCOTUS members, irrespective of political alignment, were in agreement was amazing by itself.
While this ruling by the SCOTUS is honorable, it still doesn’t make up for their dismissal of the election fraud case brought by Texas and others. It’s too little, too late for my liking.
The problem with bringing all the political wrongdoers to justice is there would not be enough good lawmakers left in office to get anything done. That still doesn’t change my mind that it shouldn’t be done. Honestly and transparency in government is unobtainable but can be a lot better than it is.
Or- alternatively- those doing wrong would be replaced by better representatives. Think how much better the US would be if the people in SF were required to replace Malig-Nancy because she was no longer available for public office.
We could only hope…..
She’d look good in an orange jumpsuit.
I mean, “redress of grievances.”
QB VII was a great story. The Judge was played by Jack Hawkins in his final role & had a laryngectomy for throat cancer prior to filming.
Tyranny flourishes in the absence of “recourse of grievances.”
The only thing which amazes me is that Patriot parents in America still send their kids to any government-operated school.
Make your kids pay for their own books and tuition if they choose to attend a Marxist-run university.
Seems like the Righteous People…who can actually do something about what was and is happening to our country…are finally waking up. Let’s hope this is a trend.
Yes, SCOTUS is doing the right thing by hearing the case.
What is the recourse against the lower courts that took the easy out? They took that easy out likely because they didn’t want to enshrine a ruling that would affect all other colleges and universities who have safe spaces where “controversial” things are not to be spoken. The definition of controversial changes hourly.
The fact that we are teaching kids at college that some facts are not to be spoken out loud because others might be offended is the worst of slippery slopes.
Because facts are definitive. It’s not based on a thought or a feeling which can change with the direction of the way.
If Gwinnet College is a public college (receives federal funding), and this student were to get a large settlement, basically the taxpayers would be paying the settlement because the college decided not to abide by the Constitution.
I think the federal govt. should clamp down on all colleges and withhold funds if said college is in violation of The Constitution or state/local laws.
They shouldn’t be able to subvert the country and its young on the taxpayers dime.
They shouldn’t be allowed to run like their own little dictatorship country.
I would advise all parents to NOT send their children to college except for careers that require specialty training (doctors, lawyers, etc.).
And I would sit down with my child and let them know what they may be subjected to if they do attend.
There are plenty of Vo-Tech, 2 year, and other paths to well-paying jobs that won’t leave a person with 6-figure student loan debt and not mess with their heads.
The college officials who violated the Constitution should have to pay out of their own pockets, with no recourse to umbrella insurance policies. Umbrella policies are fine for those who inadvertantly make mistakes (like we all do) but this was intentional on their part and unless they all want to resign their positions, they shouldn’t be allowed to plead stupidity.
Should have to rename the place “Some Kid’s Big Ole Fvq’n University”.
h/t Ron White
Even rarer these days is seeing the courts make a decision in favor of justice.