Priorities.

I don't think I'm the only one who finds it perverse that yesterday the Supreme Court upheld the speech rights of the powerful interests seeking to change the course of history, but against the speech rights of a kid who erected a sign at his high school that read "Bong Hits for Jesus."

Imagine, though, if the situation had been the obverse--if the court had heard one case about a pre-election, pro-legalized-drug campaign ad (aired against a popular Republican, of course) and another about a student penalized for lofting an anti-abortion, anti-liberal judge banner at his high school. I know that the Court is supposed to be too high minded for partisanship (or something), but I can't help but think that, if things had been switched, the gang of five might have come to exactly the opposite decisions. Which would have reversed the outcomes, yes, but also changed the attendant and extremely relevant legal implications of their rulings.