|
VitalSigns posted:We do let people display it, that wasn't the issue. It's always been and will always be completely legal to display the Confederate flag. Still think it's a symbol of treason.
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:01 |
|
|
Am I understanding right that Ginsburg won't release any opinions now, as they're released in reverse seniority? Or is that on a per-day, not per-year, basis?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Am I understanding right that Ginsburg won't release any opinions now, as they're released in reverse seniority? Or is that on a per-day, not per-year, basis? Per day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Am I understanding right that Ginsburg won't release any opinions now, as they're released in reverse seniority? Or is that on a per-day, not per-year, basis? Per day, so we have no idea who's writing the opinions coming out Monday.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Am I understanding right that Ginsburg won't release any opinions now, as they're released in reverse seniority? Or is that on a per-day, not per-year, basis? For the year, opinions are released on the first announcement day after the opinion is finalized. On each announcement day, the opinions that are ready are presented in order of reverse seniority, with the Chief Justice always going last, regardless of his time on the bench. Aside from the announcements, there's also some effort by the court to balance workloads on a monthly basis, with each justice generally writing at least one majority opinion for each month (based on when the case was argued, not when the opinion is announced). Right now, for example, the only opinion remaining from the court's January sitting is Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project and Justice Kennedy is the only Justice without a majority opinion from January. That means it's a decent bet (but not certain) that Kennedy will be writing that opinion. That's better for supporters of disparate impact analysis than the alternative, because before the opinions were announced today, the other likely possibility was Justice Thomas (but he got the sign case from January).
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Still think it's a symbol of treason. In the last hundred years the meaning of the battle flag has changed from what it once was to a symbol of reactionary culture and politics which also tend to include being a USA #1 super patriot, which is why this troll is so much fun to use on people are are into it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Maarek posted:In the last hundred years the meaning of the battle flag has changed from what it once was to a symbol of reactionary culture and politics which also tend to include being a USA #1 super patriot, which is why this troll is so much fun to use on people are are into it. Oh I get that in their mind it's 'Murcia. But it's the symbol of a treason movement that nearly destroyed 'Murcia. Now I don't think the root cause of the civil war is as simple as "the south is racist" but regardless of their motives, what they did was treason. You can't fly a traitors banner and call yourself a proud American. So back to my original assessment: moron or master troll.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
I don't think lost causers believe they're in southeastern Spain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Apparently a court held that senior Bush officials can be sued for their post 911 profiling: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/us/immigrants-suit-over-detention-after-9-11-is-revived.html This is almost certainly going to be taken up and overturned by the SCOTUS, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You can't fly a traitors banner and call yourself a proud American. You can take my Kenneth Brannagh Spider Flag from Wild Wild West from my cold dead hand, statist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
mdemone posted:He's saying that the Confederate flag has no intrinsic speech value, which is such obvious bullshit. He was saying the opposite - that displaying the confederate flag is speech. By displaying some private speech and not others, the government is discriminating based on viewpoint, which is a no-no. He concludes that speech on custom license plates should be treated in the same way that speech on the side of city buses is treated. The implication of the decision is that Texas is allowed to produce pro-life license plates and also deny an design for pro-choice license plates - what's listed on license plates counts as "government speech" so they can pick and choose which viewpoints they want to show. Which has already happened, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
Why exactly should I care whether the government chooses to make license plates available for every side in a debate, no matter how traitorous or racist? Are license plates so big now that you can't fit some dumb bumper sticker next to them announcing your support for local sports teams/abortion rights/slavery?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why exactly should I care whether the government chooses to make license plates available for every side in a debate, no matter how traitorous or racist? Because the state shouldn't be forced to do things it deems traitorous or racist?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
^^ That's what I'm saying. I'm responding to the complaint that because of this ruling Texas might choose to print pro-life license plates and not pro-choice ones but I don't see why I should care about that situation. VV No worries VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:^^ That's what I'm saying. Ah, I am phone posting and didn't read yours in context with the prior statement - misinterpreted you, I apologize.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Oh I get that in their mind it's 'Murcia. But it's the symbol of a treason movement that nearly destroyed 'Murcia. Now I don't think the root cause of the civil war is as simple as "the south is racist" but regardless of their motives, what they did was treason. You can't fly a traitors banner and call yourself a proud American. So back to my original assessment: moron or master troll. Well, if you can take a flag of a white supremacist nation and make it represent all races, it doesn't seem a big leap to take another white supremacist flag and treat it as a continuation of white supremacy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Oh I get that in their mind it's 'Murcia. But it's the symbol of a treason movement that nearly destroyed 'Murcia. Now I don't think the root cause of the civil war is as simple as "the south is racist" but regardless of their motives, what they did was treason. You can't fly a traitors banner and call yourself a proud American. So back to my original assessment: moron or master troll. You are out of your mind. Public shaming them is one thing, but making it treasonous is another thing completely. Edit: This is especially funny since you always want to talk about law vs. perception. You decide to come down on the perception side of something that is important, yet meaningless at the same time. Plus, how many lives would be lost if we sent the Government in to take down all of those flags? Are those lives worth the cost to you? Pohl fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Plus, how many lives would be lost if we sent the Government in to take down all of those flags? Are those lives worth the cost to you? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
While I find myself agreeing with the text of ActusRhesus' post everyone is quoting, I don't trust that it's sincere and not just a bunch of bullshit performance art under the belief that it'd mean something in relation to conservatives like King being like nazi death camp guards in that they are culpable on a level beyond mere passive complicity and aren't exonerated just because they whored themselves out to someone with similar ideals but more money. Like "oh, they think King is like a death camp guard in this thread? well let me raise the ante and say flying the confederate symbol is treason, maybe they'll catch my subtle sarcasm and see the light" except completely misguided.
FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
Maybe it's just that the confederate flag is a textbook example of a symbol of treason?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Maybe it's just that the confederate flag is a textbook example of a symbol of treason? I have it on good authority from people in the South that it was actually the Union maliciously, and unfairly attacking the poor Southern States who were only trying to best follow the legacy of the Founders. Oh if only that Lincoln hadn't so bloodthirstily used his tyrannic hordes to attack the unsuspecting South.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Maybe it's just that the confederate flag is a textbook example of a symbol of treason? That's something I agree with in full, nobody's going around running a full-page ad of a picture of Yamamoto in the Honolulu papers on December 7, nobody's hailing Benedict Arnold up in West Point, but a good quarter of the country is loving infested with subhuman filth who think this particular symbol is not only something other than the sigil of stabbing your own country in the back but something bearing respect and honor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Maybe it's just that the confederate flag is a textbook example of a symbol of treason? Yes. This. The fact people seem not to understand the difference between poo poo that is offensive and poo poo that is an endorsement of treason amuses me. The confederacy were traitors. Their flag is a symbol of treason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:While I find myself agreeing with the text of ActusRhesus' post everyone is quoting, I don't trust that it's sincere and not just a bunch of bullshit performance art under the belief that it'd mean something in relation to conservatives like King being like nazi death camp guards in that they are culpable on a level beyond mere passive complicity and aren't exonerated just because they whored themselves out to someone with similar ideals but more money. Like "oh, they think King is like a death camp guard in this thread? well let me raise the ante and say flying the confederate symbol is treason, maybe they'll catch my subtle sarcasm and see the light" except completely misguided. No. I genuinely think endorsing treason should be a crime. You want to claim southern pride, fly your state flag. Flying the flag of the confederacy is an endorsement of treason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 11:51
|
|
|
When I think of what our country needs it's definitely a lot more people in prison so I'm definitely on board with this legal fan fiction you're writing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 12:06
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No. I genuinely think endorsing treason should be a crime. You want to claim southern pride, fly your state flag. Flying the flag of the confederacy is an endorsement of treason. Yeah...about that  
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 12:06
|
|
|
Dubstep Jesus posted:When I think of what our country needs it's definitely a lot more people in prison so I'm definitely on board with this legal fan fiction you're writing. This forum discusses how they'd like the law to be vs how the law actually is all the time. My turn now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why exactly should I care whether the government chooses to make license plates available for every side in a debate, no matter how traitorous or racist? Because this decision is an expansion of the government speech doctrine, and will be used as precedent in future first amendment cases. It opens the door to more government viewpoint-based discrimination, which doesn't only cut against offensive speech from the right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
What is viewpoint based discrimination? The government isn't saying "you can't go to UT if you have a Confederate bumper sticker" or banning the Confederate flag or anything like that, just refusing to print them on government documents. Does the First Amendment really require the government to print my personal views on government documents? Do you agree with the dissent that state universities should be required to permit anything on their bulletin boards?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What is viewpoint based discrimination? It's discriminating against speakers based on their views. Which is vaguely defined in words but is fairly well understood in the context of historical court opinions. When the government opens up a government setting to private speech, they are creating a forum for speech. For example, allowing people to protest in a public park, or giving tax deductions for charitable donations, or allowing private charities to solicit federal employees through the federal govt's combined charity campaign, or allowing advertisements on city buses, or allowing people to post signs on public rights-of-way. These forums require the government to print or display private speech, even if the government disagrees with the viewpoint of the speaker or finds it offensive. Government speech definitely exists, and government sponsored forums for speech definitely exist. A fuzzy line exists between them, but I'm with the ACLU on this one when I say that this decision moves the line.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
Would have been better to just say "treason is not protected speech and the confederate flag is the symbol of the largest act of treason in American history". Especially given a the "the south will rise again" bullshit. You lost. Get over it. You're lucky your ancestors weren't all hanged as traitors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
esquilax posted:It's discriminating against speakers based on their views. Which is vaguely defined in words but is fairly well understood in the context of historical court opinions. When phrased like this it sounds like Bong Hits for Jesus, which makes me even more confused that Scalia dissented.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Because this decision is an expansion of the government speech doctrine, and will be used as precedent in future first amendment cases. It opens the door to more government viewpoint-based discrimination, which doesn't only cut against offensive speech from the right. I swear this level of worship over freedom of speech borders into idolatry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
Just take away personalized/vanity/whatever plates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Just take away personalized/vanity/whatever plates. And ask the state to give up a revenue source based on exploiting the insanity of its citizens? You monster. Seriously. Vanity plates are dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Would have been better to just say "treason is not protected speech and the confederate flag is the symbol of the largest act of treason in American history". Especially given a the "the south will rise again" bullshit. You lost. Get over it. You're lucky your ancestors weren't all hanged as traitors. I kind of agree with this, but also think treasonous speech should be protected? I doubt many flyers of the confederate flag literally want armed revolution or advocate for the same. So long as the direct doesn't call for violence it should be permitted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Seriously. Vanity plates are dumb. I'm disappointed that this sentence didn't appear at the end of the ruling with a 9-0 concurrence. But maybe Ginsburg has Notorious RBG plates
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm disappointed that this sentence didn't appear at the end of the ruling with a 9-0 concurrence. I would kill for an RBG themed plate
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Would have been better to just say "treason is not protected speech and the confederate flag is the symbol of the largest act of treason in American history". Especially given a the "the south will rise again" bullshit. You lost. Get over it. You're lucky your ancestors weren't all hanged as traitors. What's with you and treason?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:01 |
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I kind of agree with this, but also think treasonous speech should be protected? I doubt many flyers of the confederate flag literally want armed revolution or advocate for the same. So long as the direct doesn't call for violence it should be permitted. Except our whole justification for playing game of drones with al anwaki was in recognition that treasonous speech IS dangerous. Side note: I disapprove of summarily executing people outside a theater of combat. I would not, however, had had any issue with trying him for treason and other crimes and hanging his rear end if he were convicted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 15:01
|
|