"Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor," Chief Justice John Roberts said in a majority Supreme Court ruling Monday.

The trouble is that he wasn’t talking about free speech for ordinary people; he was talking about corporate and union ad spending before elections.

That makes it pretty clear, then, where Roberts’ sympathies lie. Not with citizens, but with big business.

Yes, this was not a good week for personal liberty _ no matter whether you’re talking freedoms-to or freedoms-from. The high court handed down three rulings Monday, all by 5-4 votes, that attack liberty and uphold corporate and government power.

Of course, what else would we expect from a court with more than 20 percent of its justices appointed by President Bush?

Four years ago, the high court sided with the historic McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Part of that measure prohibited interest groups from running corporate- or union-funded radio and television ads using a candidate’s name within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

There’s no doubt the ruling limited freedom of speech, which is hardly ever a good thing. But the limitation was not directed at individual expression; rather, its motivation was to help liberate an out-of-control election process from the holds of big-money interests for the benefit of an electorate feeling more and more powerless at the ballot box.

So it shouldn’t be surprising that Roberts and his cohorts would side with money interests against the people by limiting the power of government to protect citizens from those interests. And, after all, isn’t that one of the legitimate roles of government?

Well, apparently not with a majority on this court.

In another ruling this week, the First Amendment so important to Roberts in the campaign-finance case went by the wayside when it came to protecting the right of a high school student to display a banner with a reference to smoking marijuana.

In the ``Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, an the principal at a high school in Juneau, Alaska, suspended student John Frederick, who displayed the banner during a public event. The suspension led to a civil rights lawsuit.

Roberts played presidential payback for his court nomination, writing an opinion that massacres free speech and could be used down the road to quell expression that refers to any illegal activity, such as civil disobedience. He insisted that schools can restrict student free expression that advocates the use of illegal drugs.

``Bong Hits 4 Jesus’’ doesn’t advocate anything, except maybe silliness. But think of the consequences of the court’s ruling the next time a student sign advocates a protest or a boycott of some kind. It’s not that big of a leap to see such free speech squelched, based on the Roberts opinion in the ``bong’’ case.

And that’s exactly what school administrators and Bush wanted: the right to halt free speech if its message runs counter to some vague idea of ``educational mission.’’ At least the court stopped short of making such an infringement on free expression explicit. Unfortunately, the effect in the future will be virtually the same.

But why stop there? Let’s go for a triple play, as if freedom were like runners dashing around the bases. When you’re trying to thank the president for your job, why not make a ruling that bars groups from challenging one of the White House’s controversial policies?

This time it was Bush appointee Samuel Alito writing the court’s opinion, which denies taxpayers the right to challenge the offering of federal money to religious, or so-called faith-based, charities.

The court’s decision, again 5-4, squashes a lawsuit by an atheist group that opposed the government’s meetings with religious organizations to encourage them to apply for federal grants.

The case, Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, leaves you scratching your head. Why would the high court rule people can’t sue the government over violations of the separation of church and state?

Only Bush, Roberts and Alito have the real answer, which has a lot to do with limiting the power of the people to stop the government from breaking the law.

As the court continues to undermine civil rights and legal opportunities, we are going to have to be pragmatic and tough about the importance of the high court and nominees.

We need to make sure the next president is different, and not willing to sell the American spirit of freedom to the highest corporate or fundamentalist bidder.

___

Cary Brunswick is managing editor of The Daily Star and can be reached at 432-2047 ext. 217 or cary@thedailystar.com.