The SC (Supreme Court) Actually Gets Two Decisions In A Row Correct! A New Moder

The crazy thing about the liscense plate one is Thomas split from the conservative justices. He almost never splits from Alito.

rock,

Don't know about the second decision. Why is it OK to "celebrate" someone's past, but not others. Sort of censorship in my book.

Interestingly they mention it's a states right to do this, yet the Civil War was about states rights.

@Clubber "yet the War of Northern Aggression was about states rights"

ftfy

You don't own your license plate. It is the property of the state issuing it. The state you live in is under no constitutional obligation to allow you to customize your license plate in the first place. How the F isn't that an obvious 9-0 decision? And how does something so F-ing obvious make it up to the supreme court to begin with?

Clubber, you are free to fly the flag of southern treason to your heart's content. But the State Of Texas isn't compelled to put it on their government issued plate. Censorship is an inappropriate word, because you have the freedom of all Americans to express yourself, even if the speech is distasteful. Texas, as the government, also has a right to free speech; they decided they didn't want the flag of southern treason on their license plate. They also don't allow "Fuck" on their plates, but you have every right to put that on a bumper sticker.

Dr Phil: I love the irony you point out: what the South was fighting for is the very principle that led to the decision to allow the state to determine what they want their state to stand for.

roeck,

We each are entitled to our opinions. So you are entitled to yours, wrong that it may be.

It also seems ironic that the State of Texas refuses to make a vanity plate with the Confederate flag on it, yet flies the CSA flag (the Stars & Bars) over it's state capitol building and that flag's image is also present on the back of the Texas State Seal. That seems a bit ambiguous.

Motor, the same exists with the US Supreme court and Congress. Each session opens with prayer yet they ban prayer from public gatherings. They ban the Ten Commandments from an Alabama courtroom yet it hangs on the wall of their courtroom.

^^^ Is it ok to burn the CSA flag as a form of free speech?

I agree with the decision but understand the dissent. Apparently other states allow the confederate flag on their plates, which I found interesting.

mjx, I think the question of whether or not a government can condone one thing while forbidding a similar raises some interesting constitutional speech questions. What if they were to allow a Baptist symbol but not a Methodist?

Jester: The SC didn't say you can't have the flag of southern treason on their license plates. They ruled that the State has the right to regulate speech on state issued documents, which includes license plates. Texas in a rare moment of clarity decided it was offensive to do that. If another state is proud of slavery, they have every right to advertise this fact if their legislature approves.

The fact that the license plate is the property of the state seems decisive to me It's like if you wanted to put "FUCK" on my bumper, and I said "No." I can't see how it's reasonable to say you're permitted to write "FUCK" on my bumper if I don't want you to.

The Confederate Battle Flag is the predominant symbol of white supremacy in America. It's display is socially disruptive and should be discouraged. Like the display of Nazi or ISIS flags.

I don't think the Supreme Court has a copy of the Ten Commandments on any of its walls. At least I didn't notice any such thing the last time I was there about 20 years ago.

By the way, have any of you actually read those things? Even just the First? "“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me."

Why on Earth would you want a thing like that in a Court of Law?

The Second is even more bizarre: "You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

???

The Old Testament is indeed bizarre in light of modern morality. Like Exodus...targeting an innocent civilian population in a political dispute?? That what we did in the 1950's by targeting nukes at major cities! A true deity would not murder innocent citizens that have no say in the political system. It's not like they had elections!

who in the fuck gave the government rights? a government has no rights in a free society. it is an evil necessity at best. a tyranical master at worst

@rockstar666 "...what the South was fighting for..."

despite revisionist history what the South was fighting for was:

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

Rockstar, I'm quite clear on what the SC ruled.

MJX implied that it was ridiculous that the topic even made it to the Supreme Court. I was highlighting that their were implications that raised constitutional questions. The issue is broader than that of the confederate flag, but apparently in your blind hatred some of you can't quite grasp that.

jester: the decision was 5-4. Obviously it isn't as clear as you pretend.

Very interesting discussion here. Thanks to motorhead I now know that the confederate flag flies over the Texas state legislature and that same flag features on the Texas state seal.

That is no surprise to me, considering the stench of slavery permeates the whole independence movement in Texas in the 1830s. Remember The Alamo and all that shit. Those boys fighting in the Alamo were slavers, Houston, Bowie, Crockett, all of them. Slavery had been abolished in Mexico and those notorious slavers tried to take the opportunity to establish a slave Republic of Texas. They couched their desires behind the talking horse of independence from Mexico.

Why have those old slavers enjoyed such good PR for the last 175 years?

^^^^ You were doing ok until the end of your statement.

Rockstar, you just made my argument for me.

The issue is clear: are citizen's freedom of speech rights unconstitutionally restricted if a state objects to the content of a suggested vanity plate. The SC ruled "no" because government also has rights to freedom of speech. It was the correct decision, notwithstanding of my inflammatory depiction of the battle flag being a flag of southern treason. If TEXAS says it's inappropriate, perhaps people should pay attention! TEXAS!

Wow a rush of posts, I was talking to Jester.

Houston was at the Alamo?

farmerart: I wasn't aware of that! They don't really teach history in school; they teach politics.

art is reading from his canadian version of world history book again. written with crayon of course

I guess it can be argued that the issue is clear NOW. As I stated in my initial post, I do think it's the right decision.

But again, the lawsuit raised some interesting implications that went well beyond the confederate flag. Questions that almost certainly needed to be addressed by the SC, which was my initial point to mjx.

What farmer left out was that Mexico wanted Texan settlers to primarily speak spanish and become Mexican citizens. Hell no. That alone was worth fighting about.

what farmerart left out was that he doesn't know shit about Texas history. and far worse his bullshit spurious charges against Sam Houston who married into and was adopted a citizen of the Cherokee nation, was NEVER at the Alamo but subsequently defeated Santa Ana's army and later became president of the Republic of Texas, US senator and then governor of the state of Texas.

MOST FUCKING NOTABLY art is IGNORANT to the fact that as governor, Sam Houston refused to swear loyalty to the Confederacy when Texas seceded from the Union in 1861 with the outbreak of the American Civil War, and was removed from office and to avoid bloodshed, he refused an offer of a Union army to put down the Confederate rebellion. Instead, he retired to Huntsville, Texas, where he died before the end of the Civil War nowhere near the Alamo.

but hey art, don't let any of that get in the way of your besmirching such a remarkable man in pursuit of your hatred for the great state of Texas

Maybe Houston didn't swear loyalty because he viewed the Confederacy as a "foreign" government...? After all, he wanted to be the leader of his OWN country. Throwing in with the Conferacy would have been self defeating.

^^^Sam Houston sided with the Unionists, that's why

Rock,the Colonies were held in high treason by the crown.How can you play a guitar with no spine?

wvhcgs.com

Good point mjx

A few not so minor points about Texas history. Houston was NOT at the Alamo. The original leaders of the Texas Revolution did not give a damn about slavery, either way. The issues they were pissed about were Mexico's Roman Catholic oath (to be a citizen, own land or use public roads, an individual had to be Romas Catholic and give an oath to defend the Church and Santa Anna); and a load of transaction taxes Santa Anna imposed only on Texas residents who came from the US.

No "Confederate" flag flies over the Texas capitol. The state flag of Texas, is the same flag as the flag of the Republic of Texas and dates to 1834 - it was first flown as Texas' flag in late 1836. That flag is NOT the flag of the CSA.

Seven of the heros who died in the Alamo were black, 4 free and 3 slaves. Everyone was given a choice and chose to stay. More than 80 of the Alamo defenders were Hispanic, Catholic and Mexican citizens. They too believed in seperation from Mexico, but were not slave owners.

Houston was a former US congressman and former Governor of Tennessee. He definately was not anywhere near San Antonio when SA attacked. Crocket also served as a US congressman and was not a slave owner. Bowie won a slave in a poker game, the two became friends, and Bowie's "slave" died standing by his friend's side.

All in all, Farmerart's version of Texas history is just slander and can Be easily disproven with a simple search.

I love history!. We all know what happened buy -why? Never a clean answer. The Alamo was fought ,that is clear. Why it was fought is a different matter. Best major for law school is history. Take it easy on Farmerart he knows more American history than most Canadians and he knows more Canadian history than most Americans. Good discussion with only a little needless invective. Nobody learns by being shouted at, although my drill sergeant felt differently.u

Hate to break it to ya Dallas but you got a few things wrong yourself.

While the Texans certainly had other reasons for independence, maintaining their slaves was certainly on their minds. They knew they needed them to expand and also knew that eventually the Mexicans would stop them from skirting the law as they had been doing. Was this a central reason? Probably not. But I don't think you can claim they were oblivious to it.

While I won't say with 100% certainty Crockett was a slave owner I would be extremely surprised if he hadn't owned slaves at some point. I'm also confident, but not sure, that I've seen him referenced as a slave owner.

Bowie was absolutely a slave owner and also a slave trader. Frankly it's likely he was a crook.

@bvino “Take it easy on Farmerart…”

yeah i suppose you’re right. at his age it must be damn near impossible to get any blood at all back into his brain when he is upright after all that bowing and scraping to a foreign queen

@rockstar666 “Maybe Houston didn't swear loyalty because he viewed the Confederacy as a "foreign" government...? After all, he wanted to be the leader of his OWN country.”

were you homeschooled with san_jose_guy in his mother’s basement or something? Houston had already been the president of his OWN country, The Republic of Texas, before he supported applying to join the USA. Texas became a state in December 1845 and broke away 15 short years later in February 1861 with Houston as the only governor of any of the confederate states who had outright opposed secession.

btw the final battle of the War of Northern Aggression was fought near Brownsville, Texas at Palmito Ranch with a Confederate victory.

Phil: I'm a victim of public education. While I confess I've not made a point of learning the history of Texas, it doesn't invalidate my right for abject conjecture when couched as such. In other words...when I express an opinion it's quite clear it;s an opinion, not a statement to be taken as fact.

"War of northern aggression"!!! Okay. never mind. I don't debate serious issues with children.

@rockstar666 "I don't debate serious issues with children."

well at least you know enough to realize that they would out debate you