Supreme Court Ruling on License Plates

[zico20]

Here is the article. I would like to get every ones opinion on this ruling. Thomas sides with the 4 liberal justices in this 5-4 ruling. My first impression, being a states rights guy, is this is the right decision. But I will think about it some more and see if I change my mind. I haven't even read the entire article yet. :D

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/18/supreme-court-license-plates/27605915/

[JustRalph]

It's all over the news here in Texas. Btw, the way they wrote the opinion just freed up Real Estate Agents in some manner. Lots of talk about it.......but I haven't looked into it. It doesn't change much here. Bumper stickers will have to do.......... :lol:

I'm thinking of putting a confederate flag on my signs.......... :lol:

[DJofSD]

Well, let's see. With this ruling, every state can determine if customized or personalized licenses plate contains a message that is deemed to be offensive and therefore it can prohibit the plate from carrying such messages.

But then on the other hand, a private business owner does not have the freedom to discriminate based upon their personal guidelines such as the design of a wedding cake for a gay couple's marriage.

The take away message is the state has superior values when it comes to deciding what is and is not offensive.

[Tom]

The court once again sinks to the occasion.
It is an embarrassment to our nation.
Like the idiot Obama, it has far over-reached it's constitutional authority.
After reading Men I Black, I cannot consider the court anything but a society of perverts. I would not leave a small child near any one of them.

[horses4courses]

The court once again sinks to the occasion.
It is an embarrassment to our nation.
Like the idiot Obama, it has far over-reached it's constitutional authority.
After reading Men I Black, I cannot consider the court anything but a society of perverts. I would not leave a small child near any one of them.

The constitutional right to insult the hell out of their neighbor.
What more could anyone ask for?

[DJofSD]

It's about freedom of expression not freedom from hurt feelings.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Well, let's see. With this ruling, every state can determine if customized or personalized licenses plate contains a message that is deemed to be offensive and therefore it can prohibit the plate from carrying such messages.

But then on the other hand, a private business owner does not have the freedom to discriminate based upon their personal guidelines such as the design of a wedding cake for a gay couple's marriage.

The take away message is the state has superior values when it comes to deciding what is and is not offensive.

When did the Supreme Court weigh in on the wedding cake matter? It was an Oregon administrative law judge who ruled on that matter earlier this year.

[horses4courses]

It's about freedom of expression not freedom from hurt feelings.

Which works both ways.
Those "expressionists" should not get bent out of shape
when they are, correctly, referred to as bigoted and racist.

[Tom]

The constitutional right to insult the hell out of their neighbor.
What more could anyone ask for?Try night school, You are not up on your constitutional law. Maybe you could ride with Obama - he knows less about than yo do. FREE speech has nothing to do with insulting anyone.

Free speech means we have to allow things that offend us. IT the litmus test was does your speech off, Obama would not be allowed to speak on any subject in public. It's a tough world, grow a set. If you are offend by someone's plates, YOU should stay off the road.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Which works both ways.
Those "expressionists" should not get bent out of shape
when they are, correctly, referred to as bigoted and racist.

Justice Breyer's correct - I don't want an "Al Queda" emblem on a state-issued license plate. There's no free speech issue here. Just go buy a bumper sticker. Just like porn, what's offensive is best determined at more localized level, in this case at the state level. Kennedy's objections to the majority opinion were nonsense.

[Tom]

Which works both ways.
Those "expressionists" should not get bent out of shape
when they are, correctly, referred to as bigoted and racist.

Getting upset is one thing, have any of us tried stop you from displaying your ignorance? We find you and your ilk offensive, but we tolerate you.
YOU are the one who was rooting to silence Rush the other day.

Did I ask PA to an you? See, we suffer your lunacy.

GAS.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Try night school, You are not up on your constitutional law. Maybe you could ride with Obama - he knows less about than yo do. FREE speech has nothing to do with insulting anyone.

Free speech means we have to allow things that offend us. IT the litmus test was does your speech off, Obama would not be allowed to speak on any subject in public. It's a tough world, grow a set. If you are offend by someone's plates, YOU should stay off the road.

It's a state-issued license plate. Buy a bumper sticker. In this case, you need to toughen up -- it's a non-issue. You can still call Obama an idiot. You can put it on the bumper of your car. Or put it on a sign in your yard. You just can't expect NY state to provide a quasi-endorsement of YOUR political opinion.

[horses4courses]

Getting upset is one thing, have any of us tried stop you from displaying your ignorance? We find you and your ilk offensive, but we tolerate you.
YOU are the one who was rooting to silence Rush the other day.

Did I ask PA to an you? See, we suffer your lunacy.

GAS.

So, what's your problem?

You want Obama on the next space shuttle with a one-way ticket.
I would like to see Limbaugh live out the remainder of his years
homeless on the street, having generously donated his ample
fortune to any number of assorted, deserving, charities.
One can always have hopes and dreams.

Vive la difference

[DJofSD]

You just can't expect NY state to provide a quasi-endorsement of YOUR political opinion.

Why not? They give you the option to customize the plate. Who's to say it's political? Besides, the first amendment is there specifically to protect political speech.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Why not? They give you the option to customize the plate. Who's to say it's political? Besides, the first amendment is there specifically to protect political speech.

Because I don't want "Kill Cops" or "Join ISIS" or "Kill Jews" on a state-issued license plate. Buy a bumper sticker.

[Saratoga_Mike]

It's amazing to me that alleged conservatives are whining that a state won't give its imprimatur to an emblem on a license plate. Wow, is the state's imprimatur that important? Leave such nonsensical whining to the liberals of the world.

[DJofSD]

Because I don't want "Kill Cops" or "Join ISIS" or "Kill Jews" on a state-issued license plate. Buy a bumper sticker.
Those messages are not free speech and there are laws which prevent such provocative messages from being used. Typically referred to as fighting words.

[Clocker]

You want Obama on the next space shuttle with a one-way ticket.
I would like to see Limbaugh live out the remainder of his years
homeless on the street, having generously donated his ample
fortune to any number of assorted, deserving, charities.
One can always have hopes and dreams.


Limbaugh has no impact on your life that you don't allow him to have. I wish I could same the same about Obama.

Why would you wish evil on someone that doesn't affect you? I don't wish evil on Obama. I just wish he would leave me alone. Just like Limbaugh leaves you alone.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Those messages are not free speech and there are laws which prevent such provocative messages from being used. Typically referred to as fighting words.

Who are YOU or the state to determine what is or isn't fighting words???!!!! How dare you! Thanks for making my point. I know you'll never concede, so I'm out.

[DJofSD]

Limbaugh has no impact on your life that you don't allow him to have. I wish I could same the same about Obama.

Why would you wish evil on someone that doesn't affect you? I don't wish evil on Obama. I just wish he would leave me alone. Just like Limbaugh leaves you alone.
That was the philosophy of the late author Frank McCourt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_McCourt

[DJofSD]

Who are YOU or the state to determine what is or isn't fighting words???!!!! How dare you! Thanks for making my point. I know you'll never concede, so I'm out.
The courts are the arbitrators. Not me. Not the DMV. There are plenty of cases which are black letter law.

[DJofSD]

Who are YOU or the state to determine what is or isn't fighting words???!!!! How dare you! Thanks for making my point. I know you'll never concede, so I'm out.
Sorry you are out -- just trying to shine a little light on an obviously complex topic.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Sorry you are out -- just trying to shine a little light on an obviously complex topic.

I lied - you're simply wrong on the fighting words argument. Cohen v California tells me "Join ISIS" would not be prohibited under "fighting words" doctrine.

[JustRalph]

Saw this one yesterday

[DJofSD]

A quick read of Cohen v California tells me the case hinged on the 4 letter word appearing on the man's jacket and not any issue involving fighting words.

[rastajenk]

I agree with Mike and have no problem with this decision. I'm kind of surprised it reached the level of the Supremes to begin with. I sense a little false outrage on the part of the aggrieved. There are other, bigger fish to catch, clean, and fry out there on the political battleground, to mix metaphors horribly. :)

[Robert Goren]

Because I don't want "Kill Cops" or "Join ISIS" or "Kill Jews" on a state-issued license plate. Buy a bumper sticker. I agree with you. A government issued plate should not endorse political positions. There are few things more political than the Confederate Flag.

[classhandicapper]

They should just stop making specialty plates. Otherwise we are going to be fighting over these messages endlessly.

[JustRalph]

They should just stop making specialty plates. Otherwise we are going to be fighting over these messages endlessly.

The sons of the confederacy brought this lawsuit. They are going to re-design another plate and start over.........................

[Stillriledup]

It's more 'police state' stuff and less 'the home of the free'

[ElKabong]

Thank goodness Texas won't be producing a license plate with a confederate flag on it. Born and raised here, and I don't like the idea of a symbol of racism being available to purchase thru the state to put on cars on the road.

When do some folks, a very small % of folks, finally understand it's not in good taste to offend a large # of people? That flag has some very diff meanings to people of color than it does to a guy that thinks of the flag as a symbol of independence. Wake up.

You don't fart in an elevator. It's offensive. You don't insult someone just b/c they don't agree with you. It's offensive. (hopefully) You have the class not to intentionally offend people, that's how grown ups act. If you want to whine about a lack of freedom in the name of not being able to be an offensive jerk, then grab a couple of spoons and bang them on a table like a baby... The rest of us grown ups will just watch and keep on living.

[PaceAdvantage]

There comes a point in time where principles and freedom trump someone else being offended.

I think we passed that point long ago. Way too many people are way too offended by way too many things these days.

But I'll agree with one of your sentiments. People do indeed need to grow up and start acting like adults who have actually been in the game a while.

[ElKabong]

There comes a point in time where principles and freedom trump someone else being offended.

I think we passed that point long ago. Way too many people are way too offended by way too many things these days.

But I'll agree with one of your sentiments. People do indeed need to grow up and start acting like adults who have actually been in the game a while.

Racism to me isn't a freedom. I'm not confusing that with freedoms that are enjoyed every day by Americans. Racism is ignorance and fear. It perpetuates violence & equally senseless retaliations. Nothing good comes from racism. Nothing. If anyone on this board can come up with a good reason for displaying a racist symbol, I'm open minded to review.

[highnote]

Looks like yahoo is reading my cookies as they suggested this link about license plates:

http://www.mentertained.com/50-hilarious-car-license-plates/1/

[PaceAdvantage]

Racism to me isn't a freedom. I'm not confusing that with freedoms that are enjoyed every day by Americans. Racism is ignorance and fear. It perpetuates violence & equally senseless retaliations. Nothing good comes from racism. Nothing. If anyone on this board can come up with a good reason for displaying a racist symbol, I'm open minded to review.You brought up a couple of other things besides racism. I wasn't referring to racism or endorsing it.

Weren't you the one who wrote about farting in an elevator? I hope you weren't equating that to racism? :faint:

In any event, I have a sneaking suspicion that those who cling to the notion that the confederate flag must continue to fly somewhere, aren't doing so primarily out of racist intentions.

But maybe I'm too naive.

[ElKabong]

You brought up a couple of other things besides racism. I wasn't referring to racism or endorsing it.

Weren't you the one who wrote about farting in an elevator? I hope you weren't equating that to racism? :faint:

In any event, I have a sneaking suspicion that those who cling to the notion that the confederate flag must continue to fly somewhere, aren't doing so primarily out of racist intentions.

But maybe I'm too naive.

I know you don't endorse racism. Never said you did & know that isn't your thing. Others however do endorse it... 'it's my right to display a racist symbol if I wanna' etc. is what I read in here.

Someone here mentioned the confederate flag was the equivalent to a swastika in terms of a symbol. You and I may see both as "offensive", but to people of color (or Jews) they'll see it totally differently. Can you and I (metaphorically speaking) be above the "hey I have the freedom to act like a toothless jackass and fly any offensive flag or symbol that I want! After all, I live in America".

That mindset doesn't fly. It's still ignorance. I thought we were above that kind of thinking now. If not, I'm all for getting there.

[Saratoga_Mike]

A quick read of Cohen v California tells me the case hinged on the 4 letter word appearing on the man's jacket and not any issue involving fighting words.

The Supreme Court agreed with you. The plaintiffs did not agree with you, nor did lower courts. Fighting words are subjective (please see case law), just like this case. In the case of fighting words, you are fine with a state's definition/standard (it is in no way clear cut--otherwise, the cases would never reach the Supreme Court). But in this case, you find it intrusive that the state is making a judgment. Your reasoning, in my opinion, is inconsistent. And the words "Join ISIS" are NOT fighting words. Please see case law.

Most important, why do conservatives want the state's imprimatur? I find that disturbing. When the state outlaws a bumper sticker, then I'll join you.

[Saratoga_Mike]

It's more 'police state' stuff and less 'the home of the free'

Please avoid posting nonsense.

Try putting a "The King Sucks" bumper sticker on your car in Saudi Arabia. See what happens. Prison.

Now try an "Obama Sucks" bumper sticker in the US. See what happens. Nothing.

The former is a police state. Understand?

You just aren't entitled to the state's imprimatur in the US. Police state. Please. Sheer lunacy.

[JustRalph]

I don't see it as a racist emblem. But then again, I'm not black.

Are we supposed to not display the uniforms worn by the confederacy ?

No more reenactments? etc etc?

I think it's an overblown issue.

I will have to stand with the court though. If Justice Thomas says so, then I cannot think of anyone more qualified to make the ruling.......... :ThmbUp:

[thaskalos]

Please avoid posting nonsense.

Try putting a "The King Sucks" bumper sticker on your car in Saudi Arabia. See what happens. Prison.

Now try an "Obama Sucks" bumper sticker in the US. See what happens. Nothing.

The former is a police state. Understand?

You just aren't entitled to the state's imprimatur in the US. Police state. Please. Sheer lunacy.
Some "police states" will allow their citizens a few trivial "freedoms"...in order to create the illusion that the citizens are really "free". They will tell you that you have the "Freedom of Speech"...even as they eavesdrop on your phone conversations.

[ElKabong]

I don't see it as a racist emblem. But then again, I'm not black.

Are we supposed to not display the uniforms worn by the confederacy ?

No more reenactments? etc etc?

I think it's an overblown issue.

I will have to stand with the court though. If Justice Thomas says so, then I cannot think of anyone more qualified to make the ruling.......... :ThmbUp:

Good points. Just a question and a comment...,

Question> why would anyone want to reenact civil war battles? Seriously, this just doesn't pique my interest at all. Why would grown men reenact a battle from 150 yrs ago? There are real wars going on right now. Be a mercenary, if that's one's frame of mind.

Comment> in ref to uniforms of the confederacy...If people walked around in WWII German soldier garb thru Northwest Hwy and Preston road (you're familiar with the area I assume from your time in this area), they would get two reactions. (1) Hatred from the Jewish folks, (2) a look from most of us that have a German background that would translate "You look stupid. Just stupid".....IOW, I don't understand the need to "dress up" in uniform that brings out the worst in people.

[Dave Schwartz]

The constitutional right to insult the hell out of their neighbor.
What more could anyone ask for?

Is there something in the constitution that guarantees freedom from insult?

[zico20]

If people or a state want to fly the confederate flag that is their right. The federal government has no business to say what individuals or a state can or can't do regarding free speech when it doesn't jeopardize national security. I personally hate the idea of burning the American flag in public, but I accept that it is a right that citizens have in this country.

As far as this case goes, it surprises me that the 4 liberal judges sided against free speech and with states rights. Also, that 4 conservatives sided with free speech. It seems flip flopped to me. Only Thomas voted his ideology, IMO. This ruling has pissed off the ACLU, which can really never be a bad thing. Finally, the ruling is a victory for states rights now that they can make their own decisions on what they want to do. No more can liberal federal judges tell the states what they can promote and what they can't. North Carolina will soon be free to promote life and not have to offer pro abortion plates. Those liberal federal judges had no right to intervene in North Carolina's business.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I agree with you. A government issued plate should not endorse political positions. There are few things more political than the Confederate Flag.

Compared to a swastika, a Confederate flag is bush league.

One could make the argument that the U.S. Constitution is supposed to guarantee the right of free travel - so like driver's licenses, a state license plate really should not be allowed.

[zico20]

Good points. Just a question and a comment...,

Question> why would anyone want to reenact civil war battles? Seriously, this just doesn't pique my interest at all. Why would grown men reenact a battle from 150 yrs ago? There are real wars going on right now. Be a mercenary, if that's one's frame of mind.

Comment> in ref to uniforms of the confederacy...If people walked around in WWII German soldier garb thru Northwest Hwy and Preston road (you're familiar with the area I assume from your time in this area), they would get two reactions. (1) Hatred from the Jewish folks, (2) a look from most of us that have a German background that would translate "You look stupid. Just stupid".....IOW, I don't understand the need to "dress up" in uniform that brings out the worst in people.

I have been to reenactments here in Missouri and I will tell you it was a very enjoyable experience.

[horses4courses]

Is there something in the constitution that guarantees freedom from insult?

Not that I'm aware of.

[horses4courses]

Good points. Just a question and a comment...,

Question> why would anyone want to reenact civil war battles? Seriously, this just doesn't pique my interest at all. Why would grown men reenact a battle from 150 yrs ago? There are real wars going on right now. Be a mercenary, if that's one's frame of mind.

Comment> in ref to uniforms of the confederacy...If people walked around in WWII German soldier garb thru Northwest Hwy and Preston road (you're familiar with the area I assume from your time in this area), they would get two reactions. (1) Hatred from the Jewish folks, (2) a look from most of us that have a German background that would translate "You look stupid. Just stupid".....IOW, I don't understand the need to "dress up" in uniform that brings out the worst in people.

There will always be history buffs, and that's fine.
What they are doing isn't hurting anyone, nor is it meant to.

Sort of like those medieval Renaissance faire events.
Does it interest me enough to take part? No.
But, I can understand how some people enjoy it.

Dressing up as Nazis in order to intimidate?
That's a whole different story. :ThmbDown:

[classhandicapper]

Comparing the confederate flag to the swastika makes no sense to me.

While there are individuals and groups that do use the confederate flag as a symbol of racism and slavery, there are also clearly some southerners that view the confederate flag as a symbol of southern pride, conservative values, states rights, and a way to differentiate themselves from the liberal north.

It's easy to see how some people would be offended by it, but I think you have to examine the intent of the person displaying it.

As far as I can tell, the swastika means the same thing to everyone.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Comparing the confederate flag to the swastika makes no sense to me.

While there are individuals and groups that do use the confederate flag as a symbol of racism and slavery, there are also clearly some southerners that view the confederate flag as a symbol of southern pride, conservative values, states rights, and a way to differentiate themselves from the liberal north.

It's easy to see how some people would be offended by it, but I think you have to examine the intent of the person displaying it.

As far as I can tell, the swastika means the same thing to everyone.

Does the term skinhead mean anything to you, especially the "white power" variety?

The swastika means something very different to them versus most.

[Tom]

Is there something in the constitution that guarantees freedom from insult?

No, of course not.
And btw, I don't like your tie at all~!

[DJofSD]

The Supreme Court agreed with you. The plaintiffs did not agree with you, nor did lower courts. Fighting words are subjective (please see case law), just like this case. In the case of fighting words, you are fine with a state's definition/standard (it is in no way clear cut--otherwise, the cases would never reach the Supreme Court). But in this case, you find it intrusive that the state is making a judgment. Your reasoning, in my opinion, is inconsistent. And the words "Join ISIS" are NOT fighting words. Please see case law.

Most important, why do conservatives want the state's imprimatur? I find that disturbing. When the state outlaws a bumper sticker, then I'll join you.
I never said I agreed with the state supreme court. I was just giving a thumb nail summation of the ruling.

I understand that circumstances frame the use of a word or phrase where, in one situation such utterances would be considered fighting words while in others they would not.

My interpretation of the license plate situation is not that the state is making a judgement as much as it is prohibiting free speech. But then I expect somewhere in the process of applying for the creation of the personalized license plate there is a warning to the effect the state reserves the right to refuse an application in which case the state was likely within their rights to refuse. I realize this is splitting a hair.

Did a part of the case involve the implied promotion or advocacy of a political position by the state as a result of the politically oriented message on the license plate? If so then I would want to know if there were other politically oriented messages which did appear on other plates or not.

[Robert Goren]

It is a states right issue. I have got to believe that the states have a right to say what will appear on their plates in most cases. A state's plates send a message of what the state stand for. If Texas does not want to send the message of whatever the Confederate flag stands for, why should they be forced to.

[classhandicapper]

Does the term skinhead mean anything to you, especially the "white power" variety?

The swastika means something very different to them versus most.

As far as I know, if you wear the swastika you are probably a racist, anti-semite etc.... By definition "white power" is racist.

For many southerners, the Confederate Flag has little or nothing to do with race, religion, or hate. It's viewed in a POSITIVE light as in "we believe in states rights", "we believe conservative social values", "we are proud that our great great grandfathers fought for our independence from the yanks that were trying to take away our constitutional rights" etc...

I've long said that if it wasn't for the whole slavery issue (which was a big part but not the only reason for the war), I would have fought on the side of the south (born and always lived in NY) . I see absolutely nothing wrong with secession. I consider it a hugely positive thing.

Couples that want different things from life break up.

Business partners that want different things for their business figure out a way to divide the assets or buy each other out.

Groups of people within the same country that can't get along should break into multiple countries. I think everyone will be happier, except for those people like that to ram their own values down the throat of everyone else. Then again, those are the type of people I'd like to secede from to begin with. ;)

[Robert Goren]

As far as I know, if you wear the swastika you are probably a racist, anti-semite etc.... By definition "white power" is racist.

For many southerners, the Confederate Flag has little or nothing to do with race, religion, or hate. It's viewed in a POSITIVE light as in "we believe in states rights", "we believe conservative social values", "we are proud that our great great grandfathers fought for our independence from the yanks that were trying to take away our constitutional rights" etc...

I've long said that if it wasn't for the whole slavery issue (which was a big part but not the only reason for the war), I would have fought on the side of the south (born and always lived in NY) . I see absolutely nothing wrong with secession. I consider it a hugely positive thing.

Couples that want different things from life break up.

Business partners that want different things for their business figure out a way to divide the assets or buy each other out.

Groups of people within the same country that can't get along should break into multiple countries. I think everyone will be happier, except for those people like that to ram their own values down the throat of everyone else. Then again, those are the type of people I'd like to secede from to begin with. ;)If that were true, they would seek out a new symbol for their "Southern Pride" . It is an your face symbol to Black Americans and the people who use it know it. I do believe for one second that the people who use it don't mean it. It is only when they get called out, do the other "meanings" start to appear.
States rights in the pre Civil War period meant one thing. The States that had slavery got to keep slavery. The slave states even went as far forcing a new slave state be admitted the Union when a non slave was omitted. It did matter whether the people of the new states wanted slavery or not. There was no states rights for a state admitted as a slave state. The whole states rights argument is a bunch of hooey.

[JustRalph]

Good points. Just a question and a comment...,

Question> why would anyone want to reenact civil war battles? Seriously, this just doesn't pique my interest at all. Why would grown men reenact a battle from 150 yrs ago? There are real wars going on right now. Be a mercenary, if that's one's frame of mind.

Comment> in ref to uniforms of the confederacy...If people walked around in WWII German soldier garb thru Northwest Hwy and Preston road (you're familiar with the area I assume from your time in this area), they would get two reactions. (1) Hatred from the Jewish folks, (2) a look from most of us that have a German background that would translate "You look stupid. Just stupid".....IOW, I don't understand the need to "dress up" in uniform that brings out the worst in people.

I agree. But some like to do lots of weird shit. Ever get involved in car show culture? it's really not so much about the cars. But the socializing. Tail gate? Motorcycle riding? I think it all falls in the same realm.

[ElKabong]

I agree. But some like to do lots of weird shit. Ever get involved in car show culture? it's really not so much about the cars. But the socializing. Tail gate? Motorcycle riding? I think it all falls in the same realm.

Car shows, tailgating, motorcycle riding are pursuits for the here and now. Reenacting a civil war from 150 yrs go is just living in the past.

No harm in reenacting a war that was partly due to racism, but it just doesn't do any good imo to bring up the worst part of America's past....jmho

an aside...And, I do understand some southerners take on the flag is diff than a black person's take...But at some point we have to think of others as well. Just the right thing to do. "Don't be an ass" comes to mind, most of us raised south of the mason dixon were taught that. It doesn't exclude how we act or think around someone whose color doesn't match our skin. It's just common decency.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Some "police states" will allow their citizens a few trivial "freedoms"...in order to create the illusion that the citizens are really "free". They will tell you that you have the "Freedom of Speech"...even as they eavesdrop on your phone conversations.

Oh for the love of god, this message board is a testimony to the freedoms in this country. Read some of the postings about Obama. Has anyone been arrested yet (beyond serious threats - which aren't permitted here of course)?

Do away with the national intelligence apparatus in this country, and you will have another 9/11 in no time. But you'll be free!

Again, the whining on this topic amazes me. "I want to put a Confederate flag on my car. But it must be state-sanctioned! I must have the state's imprimatur. Bow to the state. I can't use a bumper sticker. It isn't issued by the state. All hail the state."

[Saratoga_Mike]

Is there something in the constitution that guarantees freedom from insult?

Is there something in the constitution that guarantees a state-sanctioned emblem on a license plate? No.

The four dissenting conservative justices are just wrong on this matter. The majority's opinion places discretion at the state level. Therefore, if the citizens of Texas find this rulings so abhorrent, they should simply elect officials that support Confederate flag emblems on license plates in the state of Texas.

[Saratoga_Mike]

My interpretation of the license plate situation is not that the state is making a judgement as much as it is prohibiting free speech. But then I expect somewhere in the process of applying for the creation of the personalized license plate there is a warning to the effect the state reserves the right to refuse an application in which case the state was likely within their rights to refuse. I realize this is splitting a hair.

Did a part of the case involve the implied promotion or advocacy of a political position by the state as a result of the politically oriented message on the license plate? If so then I would want to know if there were other politically oriented messages which did appear on other plates or not.

According to the Washington Post, the Confederate flag emblem was the first such message rejected by the Board of the Texas DMV. Again, it's a state-issued license plate. Ergo, the state has discretion. Texas would also most likely reject an emblem stating "Texas Sucks." However, please feel free to place a "Texas Sucks" bumper sticker on your car. The state will have no recourse against you. Private citizens might vandalized said car, though.

[Clocker]

The four dissenting conservative justices are just wrong on this matter. The majority's opinion places discretion at the state level. Therefore, if the citizens of Texas find this rulings so abhorrent, they should simply elect officials that support Confederate flag emblems on license plates in the state of Texas.

Anytime the moonbat wing of the Supreme Court defers to states rights is a cause for celebration. I don't understand the opinion of Alito and others that what is on a license plate is a matter of private free speech. You can't tell the state or local government what you want on your drivers license, on your business incorporation documents, on your car title or property deed. How is a license plate any different?

[highnote]

As far as I know, if you wear the swastika you are probably a racist, anti-semite etc.... By definition "white power" is racist.

When I was a teenager there was a building in our little Ohio town that was built sometime in the 1920s that had a swastika built into the pediment at the top of the building. I was quite surprised the first time a friend pointed it out to me!

Use of this on buildings in the U.S. was somewhat common at the time as the swastika, in Sanskrit, means "all is well". You can find the symbol atop Buddhist temples. So maybe that is why it was chosen as an element in the design of the building in my hometown?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_use_of_the_swastika_in_the_early_20th_cent ury

It's unfortunate that it has become a symbol of evil and all that is bad when it's original meaning was just the opposite.

Here's an interesting article about the history of the swastika (I don't know how true the content is, but it seems plausible):

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Swastika

The site says, the swastika has been found in excavations of Mississippian-era sites in the Ohio valley.

The site also shows a picture of a six sided star with a swastika in the middle. It says: "The Tantra-based religious movement Ananda Marga (Devanagari: आनन्द मार्ग, meaning Way to Happiness) uses a motif similar to the Raëlians, but in their case the apparent star of David is defined as equilateral triangles representing a balance of the inner and outer life, with no specific reference to Jewish culture." Talk about irony.

Given the pre-Nazi history of the swastika, I don't think many people would like seeing it on license plates, even if the intent was to have it represent something other than Nazi Germany.

Likewise, there may be positive aspects to the symbolism of the Confederate Flag, but to many people it invokes similar sentiments as the Nazi's use of the swastika symbol.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Anytime the moonbat wing of the Supreme Court defers to states rights is a cause for celebration. I don't understand the opinion of Alito and others that what is on a license plate is a matter of private free speech. You can't tell the state or local government what you want on your drivers license, on your business incorporation documents, on your car title or property deed. How is a license plate any different?

Faux outrage. If the case was "Texas Sucks" v. Texas DMV, most conservatives would not object to the ruling.

[Clocker]

My interpretation of the license plate situation is not that the state is making a judgement as much as it is prohibiting free speech. But then I expect somewhere in the process of applying for the creation of the personalized license plate there is a warning to the effect the state reserves the right to refuse an application in which case the state was likely within their rights to refuse. I realize this is splitting a hair.

To be clear, this is not a personalized license plate, like a vanity plate. People want the state to issue an optional design, as below. The state is saying that no one can force them to offer a plate design that the state doesn't offer and doesn't want to offer. Kind of like saying no one can force you to decorate a cake you don't want to decorate.



http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/cheats/2015/03/22/scotus-hears-case-on-confederate-plates/jcr:content/image.crop.800.500.jpg/1427101678669.cached.jpg

[classhandicapper]

If that were true, they would seek out a new symbol for their "Southern Pride" . It is an your face symbol to Black Americans and the people who use it know it. I do believe for one second that the people who use it don't mean it. It is only when they get called out, do the other "meanings" start to appear.
States rights in the pre Civil War period meant one thing. The States that had slavery got to keep slavery. The slave states even went as far forcing a new slave state be admitted the Union when a non slave was omitted. It did matter whether the people of the new states wanted slavery or not. There was no states rights for a state admitted as a slave state. The whole states rights argument is a bunch of hooey.

It doesn't surprise me you feel this way. That's what every northern liberal on the planet thinks and what the "victors" of the Civil War taught us all to think in history class.

[Saratoga_Mike]

To be clear, this is not a personalized license plate, like a vanity plate. People want the state to issue an optional design, as below. The state is saying that no one can force them to offer a plate design that the state doesn't offer and doesn't want to offer. Kind of like saying no one can force you to decorate a cake you don't want to decorate.



Even if it's a personalized plate, the state of Texas should and does have the option of refusing "TX SUX" on a plate.

[classhandicapper]

When I was a teenager there was a building in our little Ohio town that was built sometime in the 1920s that had a swastika built into the pediment at the top of the building. I was quite surprised the first time a friend pointed it out to me!

Use of this on buildings in the U.S. was somewhat common at the time as the swastika, in Sanskrit, means "all is well". You can find the symbol atop Buddhist temples. So maybe that is why it was chosen as an element in the design of the building in my hometown?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_use_of_the_swastika_in_the_early_20th_cent ury

It's unfortunate that it has become a symbol of evil and all that is bad when it's original meaning was just the opposite.

Here's an interesting article about the history of the swastika (I don't know how true the content is, but it seems plausible):

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Swastika

The site says, the swastika has been found in excavations of Mississippian-era sites in the Ohio valley.

The site also shows a picture of a six sided star with a swastika in the middle. It says: "The Tantra-based religious movement Ananda Marga (Devanagari: आनन्द मार्ग, meaning Way to Happiness) uses a motif similar to the Raëlians, but in their case the apparent star of David is defined as equilateral triangles representing a balance of the inner and outer life, with no specific reference to Jewish culture." Talk about irony.

Given the pre-Nazi history of the swastika, I don't think many people would like seeing it on license plates, even if the intent was to have it represent something other than Nazi Germany.

Likewise, there may be positive aspects to the symbolism of the Confederate Flag, but to many people it invokes similar sentiments as the Nazi's use of the swastika symbol.

I was aware of some of the history of the swastika, but I still think there's no comparison.

One has an almost universal meaning of "bad" in the entire modern world and the other generates different feelings among a lot of Americans, not all bad. That's the problem.

[Clocker]

Even if it's a personalized plate, the state of Texas should and does have the option of refusing "TX SUX" on a plate.

Correct. But the idea that anyone has a right to force a state to create and issue a new plate design is nuts.

[DJofSD]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-144_758b.pdf

While I follow the reasoning of the majority opinion, I have to say some of the points made by the minority opinion resonate. In a nutshell, the state long ago crossed he line and now they find themselves on the horn of a dilemma. With this ruling free speech slips a little further down the slippery slope.

[classhandicapper]

Anytime the moonbat wing of the Supreme Court defers to states rights is a cause for celebration. I don't understand the opinion of Alito and others that what is on a license plate is a matter of private free speech. You can't tell the state or local government what you want on your drivers license, on your business incorporation documents, on your car title or property deed. How is a license plate any different?


The only reason the moonbats got it right was because they agreed with the decision to not allow the flag. If the state was arguing to allow the flag and some other group didn't want it allowed, they would have sided with not allowing it.

The left has no guiding principles other than "what do I personally think is right". Then they ram value down everyone's throat. You give them way too much credit if you think there was some deep underlying principle of freedom or state rights guiding their thought.

[Clocker]

The only reason the moonbats got it right was because they agreed with the decision to not allow the flag. If the state was arguing to allow the flag and some other group didn't want it allowed, they would have sided with not allowing it.

The left has no guiding principles other than "what do I personally think is right". Then they ram value down everyone's throat. You give them way too much credit if you think there was some deep underlying principle of freedom or state rights guiding their thought.

Agreed. But when they all reverse their opinion on another states right issue, it will help prove their hypocrisy.

[Saratoga_Mike]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-144_758b.pdf

While I follow the reasoning of the majority opinion, I have to say some of the points made by the minority opinion resonate. In a nutshell, the state long ago crossed he line and now they find themselves on the horn of a dilemma. With this ruling free speech slips a little further down the slippery slope.

I don't agree with your slippery slope comment, but I agree with your overall sentiment. If there weren't decent arguments on both sides, the case never would have reached the Supreme Court.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The left has no guiding principles other than "what do I personally think is right". Then they ram value down everyone's throat. You give them way too much credit if you think there was some deep underlying principle of freedom or state rights guiding their thought.

The majority simply wants to give the state of Texas the right to refuse "Texas Sucks" on a license plate. Perfectly reasonable position.

The state's imprimatur is not necessary to express one's opinion. Oddly enough, those opposed to this opinion are embracing/endorsing big government. "I must have 'Texas Sucks' on my license plate. It will mean more on a state-issued license plate."

[DJofSD]

You can't tell the state or local government what you want on your drivers license, on your business incorporation documents, on your car title or property deed. How is a license plate any different?

Read the decision. The history of both the adoption of such customized license plates and the specific situation with the State of Texas refusing the requested plate is there.

The dissenting opinion points out the existence of other messages can not reasonably be interpreted to mean the state is endorsing or promoting the those messages, so why believe it would now be doing so for the group requesting the denied plate.

And the point that you can not modify or have personalized messages on a state issued drivers license or other documents is moot. The state already allows for and issues license plates which do contains such modifications.

[DJofSD]

I don't agree with your slippery slope comment, but I agree with your overall sentiment. If there weren't decent arguments on both sides, the case never would have reached the Supreme Court.
OK, I can appreciate your response. On some aspect of the debate I think we can agree to disagree and move forward.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The dissenting opinion points out the existence of other messages can not reasonably be interpreted to mean the state is endorsing or promoting the those messages, so why believe it would now be doing so for the group requesting the denied plate.



I read Alito's argument on this matter. If the presence on a state-issued license plate isn't at least a quasi-endorsement of the message, then the litigants would have merely opted to use bumper stickers. Therefore, Alito's argument is incorrect (and Breyer's argument is correct).

[classhandicapper]

The majority simply wants to give the state of Texas the right to refuse "Texas Sucks" on a license plate. Perfectly reasonable position.

The state's imprimatur is not necessary to express one's opinion. Oddly enough, those opposed to this opinion are embracing/endorsing big government. "I must have 'Texas Sucks' on my license plate. It will mean more on a state-issued license plate."

I agree with you and the decision.

I am simply saying the "left" on the court only took a position of "state's rights" because it agrees with the state of Texas, not because of some deep guiding principle about state's right.

[DJofSD]

I read Alito's argument on this matter. If the presence on a state-issued license plate isn't at least a quasi-endorsement of the message, then the litigants would have merely opted to use bumper stickers. Therefore, Alito's argument is incorrect (and Breyer's argument is correct).
I will be back after a few different golf related activities have concluded and I've taught my son something about cooking dinner -- likely tomorrow morning.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I will be back after a few different golf related activities have concluded and I've taught my son something about cooking dinner -- likely tomorrow morning.

Good debate - have a good game of golf.

[Tom]

Even if it's a personalized plate, the state of Texas should and does have the option of refusing "TX SUX" on a plate.

But TAXES do SUX! :D

[Show Me the Wire]

When I was a teenager there was a building in our little Ohio town that was built sometime in the 1920s that had a swastika built into the pediment at the top of the building. I was quite surprised the first time a friend pointed it out to me!

Use of this on buildings in the U.S. was somewhat common at the time as the swastika, in Sanskrit, means "all is well". You can find the symbol atop Buddhist temples. So maybe that is why it was chosen as an element in the design of the building in my hometown?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_use_of_the_swastika_in_the_early_20th_cent ury

It's unfortunate that it has become a symbol of evil and all that is bad when it's original meaning was just the opposite.

Here's an interesting article about the history of the swastika (I don't know how true the content is, but it seems plausible):

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Swastika

The site says, the swastika has been found in excavations of Mississippian-era sites in the Ohio valley.

The site also shows a picture of a six sided star with a swastika in the middle. It says: "The Tantra-based religious movement Ananda Marga (Devanagari: आनन्द मार्ग, meaning Way to Happiness) uses a motif similar to the Raëlians, but in their case the apparent star of David is defined as equilateral triangles representing a balance of the inner and outer life, with no specific reference to Jewish culture." Talk about irony.

Given the pre-Nazi history of the swastika, I don't think many people would like seeing it on license plates, even if the intent was to have it represent something other than Nazi Germany.

Likewise, there may be positive aspects to the symbolism of the Confederate Flag, but to many people it invokes similar sentiments as the Nazi's use of the swastika symbol.

Yes, the swastika has a long tradition. The Nazi swastika as opposed to the "religious" one is left handed. In spiritual tradition left handed way is associated with evil.

Many people do not understand the difference.

[FantasticDan]

If people or a state want to fly the confederate flag that is their right.
http://www.theonion.com/graphic/georgia-adds-swastika-middle-finger-to-state-flag-8998

:ThmbUp: :p

[Dave Schwartz]

Is there something in the constitution that guarantees a state-sanctioned emblem on a license plate? No.

You guys have me confused with someone who is against states rights.

My point was that we live in an age where the phrase "That offends me" makes people immediately say, "Something needs to be done about that."

I like what was done in Texas. It was reasonable, and the state acted conscionably.

HOWEVER... When do we stop deeding the control away from the state to the U.S. government? When do we stop becoming UNITED States of America and become just AMERICA?


BTW, the real estate thing was different:

Arizona Sign Law (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/06/18/supreme-court-upholds-texas-license-plate-restriction-strikes-down-local/)

[DJofSD]

HOWEVER... When do we stop deeding the control away from the state to the U.S. government? When do we stop becoming UNITED States of America and become just AMERICA?

When?

When more people get involved with and support this:
http://www.conventionofstates.com/

[Robert Goren]

If the people who want that flag on there plates, they can change the current situation by electing different people to run their state. That is what democracy is all about.

[Robert Goren]

You guys have me confused with someone who is against states rights.

My point was that we live in an age where the phrase "That offends me" makes people immediately say, "Something needs to be done about that."

I like what was done in Texas. It was reasonable, and the state acted conscionably.

HOWEVER... When do we stop deeding the control away from the state to the U.S. government? When do we stop becoming UNITED States of America and become just AMERICA?


BTW, the real estate thing was different:

Arizona Sign Law (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/06/18/supreme-court-upholds-texas-license-plate-restriction-strikes-down-local/)That happen Lee surrendered. At that we became one country instead of bunch of loosely knitted together countries. Pre- Civil War America was a lot like the modern day European Union. That pre Civil War America worked about as well as the European Union does.

[classhandicapper]

That happen Lee surrendered. At that we became one country instead of bunch of loosely knitted together countries. Pre- Civil War America was a lot like the modern day European Union. That pre Civil War America worked about as well as the European Union does.

The problem with the European union is that they are trying to merge people of different languages, cultures, values, economic standing, etc.. into a single union using a single currency.

If that doesn't work so well in the US where we are more homogeneous (at least were) , it's a mortal lock to cause conflict and economic disruption in a union where people are less mobile economically due to language, countries have different debt loads, countries have made different promises to their citizens, where some countries are conservative and some are borderline socialist.

It was an idiotic idea when they came up with it and it's still an idiotic idea. The only chance is to take all the debt and it put under one unified government.

The entire world should be trying to DECENTRALIZE.

That may not be the best way to organize in a theoretical sense, but in this REAL world of different cultures, religions, tribes, races, etc... it will reduce conflict and maximize freedom.

The melting pot only works when all the people want to make and eat the same dish.

[Tom]

The problem with the European union is that they are trying to merge people of different languages, cultures, values, economic standing, etc.. into a single union using a single currency.

That is what the democrats are trying to do here.

[PaceAdvantage]

It's funny...nobody wants to do away with flying this flag:

http://images.all-free-download.com/images/graphicthumb/united_states_clip_art_14124.jpg

And yet it (or an earlier version of it) flew for MUCH LONGER above all those slave plantations BEFORE we went to war with each other...condoning all that went on below it...

So why aren't we all screaming for the US FLAG to be withdrawn from all STATE and FEDERAL capitol buildings?

Or maybe we will one day...that's where this country is ultimately headed...

[TJDave]

So why aren't we all screaming for the US FLAG to be withdrawn from all STATE and FEDERAL capitol buildings?

Because that flag was the winning flag.

[PaceAdvantage]

Because that flag was the winning flag.Doesn't matter. Before the war was ever fought, that flag condoned slavery just as much as the Confederate bars and stars.

[classhandicapper]

That flag belongs in a museum next to the confederate flag. This is going to be the new flag!

[TJDave]

This is going to be the new flag!

You'd best learn to speak Spanish, then.

Or, just learn how to count. You can order off the combo menu.

[classhandicapper]

You'd best learn to speak Spanish, then.

Or, just learn how to count. You can order off the combo menu.

I already know how to press "uno" for Ingles.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Because that flag was the winning flag.

Not really. The winning flag had far fewer stars on it.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

When?

When more people get involved with and support this:
http://www.conventionofstates.com/

Is this the same as a "Constitutional Convention"? The web site seems pretty vague.

IMHO, a Constitutional Convention is the sole avenue for a peaceful transition to where our country is going - which is going to be in a far less powerful state to dictate to the rest of the world what's best for the U.S., as the empire declines.

The problem with a Constitutional Convention is it can be a double-edged sword, and it's highly unlikely the attendees would be united in purpose or as talented in thought as the founding fathers back in Philadelphia in 1787. We are much more on the path of becoming a police state, and seem to share some of the same characteristics as Germany of the 1920s or Russia of 1917.....

[Saratoga_Mike]

Before 1861, the American flag was flown primarily on ships and at military outposts. It rarely would have been displayed at a private home or plantation. After the start of the Civil War, northern homes started to display the American flag to show their support for a unified country.

[DJofSD]

Is this the same as a "Constitutional Convention"? The web site seems pretty vague.

IMHO, a Constitutional Convention is the sole avenue for a peaceful transition to where our country is going - which is going to be in a far less powerful state to dictate to the rest of the world what's best for the U.S., as the empire declines.

The problem with a Constitutional Convention is it can be a double-edged sword, and it's highly unlikely the attendees would be united in purpose or as talented in thought as the founding fathers back in Philadelphia in 1787. We are much more on the path of becoming a police state, and seem to share some of the same characteristics as Germany of the 1920s or Russia of 1917.....
Try reading the FAQ: http://www.conventionofstates.com/faq