The SC (Supreme Court) Actually Gets Two Decisions In A Row Correct! A New Moder
rockstar666
Illinois
The first was easy: you can't have one law about limitations of the size of a sign for commercial advertising and another for religious messages. That's discriminatory against religions and the ruling was 9-0.
The second was more nebulous: can Texas refuse to make a vanity plate with the Confederate flag. The issue is private free speech vs. government's right to control its own rights to free speech. The court ruled that license plates issued by a state is government speech, and therefore have the right to control what speech it makes. It's the same principle of not allowing profanity, anti gay or pro Nazi vanity plates according to 5 of the justices. I'm surprised the other 4 disagreed; to me it was very simple but I knew it would be close. The issue of the governments right to free speech vs. private rights is not always clear.
The second was more nebulous: can Texas refuse to make a vanity plate with the Confederate flag. The issue is private free speech vs. government's right to control its own rights to free speech. The court ruled that license plates issued by a state is government speech, and therefore have the right to control what speech it makes. It's the same principle of not allowing profanity, anti gay or pro Nazi vanity plates according to 5 of the justices. I'm surprised the other 4 disagreed; to me it was very simple but I knew it would be close. The issue of the governments right to free speech vs. private rights is not always clear.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
42 comments
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.
ftfy
We each are entitled to our opinions. So you are entitled to yours, wrong that it may be.
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?
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."
???
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"
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
well at least you know enough to realize that they would out debate you