The right would have you believe that Obama will go to any lengths to try and silence dissidence, of course without proof. What they seem to forget is the great lengths the Bush administration went to in order to silence the opposing views. Now the Supreme Court is going to hear one such case:

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether Secret Service agents protecting Vice President Dick Cheney may be sued for violating the free speech rights of a member of the public who made critical remarks about the Bush administration’s war policies.

The case arose from an episode in 2006 at a mall in Beaver Creek, Colo. A Secret Service agent said he heard Steven Howards say into a cellphone that he planned to ask Mr. Cheney “how many kids he’s killed today.” Mr. Howards later approached Mr. Cheney and said the administration’s “policies in Iraq are disgusting.” Mr. Howards then touched Mr. Cheney on the shoulder in a gesture variously described as an open-handed pat, a slap and a strike that caused the vice president’s shoulder to dip.

Confronted by the Secret Service, Mr. Howards denied touching Mr. Cheney and said, “If you don’t want other people sharing their opinions, you should have him avoid public places.” Agents arrested Mr. Howards for assault and turned him over to local authorities. He was charged with harassment under state law, but those charges were later dropped.

This is going to be a really interesting case to watch in a court ruled by ideology. If they rule against Mr. Howards, then they are saying that President Obama can have Secret Service silence those he disagrees with. Will the right accept that from a conservative leaning court?

On the other hand if they side with Mr. Howard then it will empower the right to go out and disagree with President Obama at any public event while many on the left will be upset and wonder why nothing is being done.

At the end of the day the ruling should be for allowing dissent, but if it was found out that Mr. Howard did touch Cheney, then that should be ruled as a no-no. Both issues go to the heart of our Constitution and that ruling would prove that our sacred document still has some meaning in this country.