After a small slew decisions today, the WaPo has come to the conclusion that the Supreme Court Leans Conservative:

Four of the five cases announced today were decided by the conservative majority led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., as the divisions that narrowly but decisively split the justices on social issues were on full display. . . .

Today’s decisions added to the court’s rising number of 5 to 4 votes this term, substantially higher than last year’s total. A few of them favor the court’s liberal wing, but conservatives are on a recent roll.

Predictably, the Red Rag NY Times is up in arms about the decisions, printing a small slew of articles and editorials in protest. Indeed, the editorial spells out the Times’ view in no uncertain terms: Three Bad Rulings.

Whether the rulings are “bad” or not depends entirely on one’s point of view.

The court upheld the right of a principal to suspend a student who promoted drug use by creating a banner that proclaimed, “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. In light of the lack of discipline in our public schools, I don’t know that a restriction on children’s free speech is uncalled for.

The court split hairs in ruling that tax money could be funneled to faith-based initiatives if the source was the executive office rather than congressional decree (which is prohibited by precedent). But the unspoken conclusion is that precedent may be overturned by this court if the proper case presents itself. In other words, a bad precedent created by a liberal court may be overturned in the future.

But the high point of the day had to be the loosening of restrictions on free speech as a result of the Constitution-shredding McCain-Feingold. The court ruled that the only advertisements that can be kept off the air in the days before an election are, in the words of Chief Justice Roberts, “susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.”

Describing and then dismissing the rationale for the advertising restrictions, Chief Justice Roberts used a phrase that seemed to sum up the new majority’s view toward campaign finance regulation. “Enough is enough,” the chief justice said. . . .

It may be only a matter of time before the court reconsiders its 2003 decision upholding the constitutionality of the entire law, or at least expands its Monday decision to strike down any restriction on advertising. Three of the five justices in the majority, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, declined to sign the chief justice’s opinion because it did not take that step.

Even before the last election I was vocal in my feelings that Bush’s domestic policies are little short of disastrous. But the conservatation* of the Supremes offsets that a little.

* Shakespeare made up over 3,000 words. Allow me this one.

Update: Liberal spin is gearing up on this one. Check out this headline: Supreme Court Sides With Administration, Corporations In New Decisions.