• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge finds NC "Choose Life" plate unconstitutioonal

I do not agree with the judge! That being sad I have no right to tell anyone what they can or cant do with their bodies. That is a personal choice handled by the person and a doctor. I do question the sanity of someone who would put that on a the back of a car. Mental issues come to mind!
 
H. Lee White said:
I'll accept your intentional obtuseness as a concession of the point. Thank you.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between being obtuse, and being realistic. Asking about a court case that will never happen is kinda stupid. Complaining about a group looking to protect your civil rights even moreso.
 
digsbe said:
How is it a victory for free speech by taking away the ability to voice a viewpoint on a license plate?
Click to expand...

It's pretty clear. They refused to allow for the countering viewpoint.
 
I can understand if they refused to allow an opposing view point, but why not just force the state to allow pro-choice license plates instead of banning pro-life ones?
 
Muddy Creek said:
You miss the point..you can't offer one side of the equation and not the other.
Click to expand...

Of course you can.

I don't see any "The troops suck" license plates out there........
 
I don't know what the confusion is. If the state is not going to allow "Pro-Choice" plates, why would they offer "Pro-Life" Plates?
 
Redress said:
No, your point was just kinda stupid. If slavery was an issue in the US today, and the state decided to allow one viewpoint on a license plate but not the other, then and only then would you have a point. As is, your "point" fails miserably.
Click to expand...

Your point is kind of stupid too.

It shouldn't matter whether it is a current active political viewpoint or not.

The great state of North Carolina has many license plates that may have "Opposing" viewpoints that have not been under attack under such an ignorant rule.
 
0bserver92 said:
You put whatever you want on your plates, just be the guy that complain about being pulled over all the time when you have the plates GUN DLR. It is the most run or searched license plate by law enforcement in Canada. If a police officer saw you had a NRA plate here you would be pulled over 9/10 times.
Click to expand...

What kind of ***** ass cops are in your area.

Most cops here are NRA supporters themselves.
 
Redress said:
Where do anhy of those offer a political view?
Click to expand...
Uhh... "Support our Troops"

That is a political view.

"I Care" with a picture of dogs and cats.

What about people who hate pets?

NRA... What about people who hate guns?
 
TaraAnne said:
I do not agree with the judge! That being sad I have no right to tell anyone what they can or cant do with their bodies. That is a personal choice handled by the person and a doctor. I do question the sanity of someone who would put that on a the back of a car. Mental issues come to mind!
Click to expand...

I question the sanity of someone who would put that picture in their avatar.
 
Samhain said:
These should also be dropped based on the judge's rule, correct? I would have added the dozen or so NASCAR plates since they don't offer Dick Trickle, but I think you see the point.
Click to expand...

Did someone propose a counter to these plates?

The state Senate apparently rejected a counter viewpoint plate 6 times, in this case.
 
BayToBay said:
Did someone propose a counter to these plates?

The state Senate apparently rejected a counter viewpoint plate 6 times, in this case.
Click to expand...

I reckon if a counter viewpoint was proposed then it is wrong to allow one while rejecting the other.
 
BayToBay said:
Did someone propose a counter to these plates?

The state Senate apparently rejected a counter viewpoint plate 6 times, in this case.
Click to expand...

I think that is the problem. The way it works in Va is that the state does not issue a plate on its own. If you want a logo plate, you precommit to a set number of plates, then the state will print provided that it meets state requirements. (No offensive language, etc.). No government agency should permit one viewpoint over another. From the article, the state permitted the pro life plates, but not the pro choice plates. I think the judge ruled correctly.



Not to be confused with vanity plates. You can express your viewpoint on a vanity plate. A committee reviews for state guideline violations, but still I don't think that any on viewpoint would be allowed over another.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
I can understand if they refused to allow an opposing view point, but why not just force the state to allow pro-choice license plates instead of banning pro-life ones?
Click to expand...

The courts do not have the authority to take such actions. That would be legislating from the bench.
 
digsbe said:
I can understand if they refused to allow an opposing view point, but why not just force the state to allow pro-choice license plates instead of banning pro-life ones?
Click to expand...

The Court really shouldn't do something like force them to have do something when there is also the option, which is just as easy and more Court-like, to say that you cannot do it.
 
digsbe said:
I can understand if they refused to allow an opposing view point, but why not just force the state to allow pro-choice license plates instead of banning pro-life ones?
Click to expand...

I would guess that is what probably happened in the ruling. There would most likely be an either/or ruling.
 
I can understand the revenue idea of these slogans and stuff on license plates, but it is going over the line. The state does not get to push some idea or viewpoint. if they offered up both sides then I could see it, but that is just another stupid hassle for the state. Just keep your nose out of campaigning political points. if a person wants to slap a anti-abortion sticker onto their car then they are allowed to. No one is taking away that ability. They are just simply saying the state cannot enter into this campaigning BS as that is endorsing one side or the other. We don't need to spend extra money on PC people to make sure that License plates have all sides represented, just get rid of the campaigning all together.

If you want to make profit on these stylized plates then do it through entertainment. you could put sports team logos, or i like fishing, or the state's motto. Youi can make your extra money off of that and leave the political campaigning to the politicians.
 
H. Lee White said:
Its a good bet that the ACLU would not sue over this, either.
Click to expand...

You clearly aren't familiar with the ACLU then. The ACLU is for equality under the law. If the State allowed a pro-choice plate but not a pro-life plate the ACLU likely would have taken the case as well. This is an organization that has sued on behalf of the KKK so the KKK could join the Adopt a Highway program. And yeah, if the ACLU had been around back in the days when slavery was an actual partisan issue, they probably would have taken that case as well.
 
Redress said:
No, your point was just kinda stupid. If slavery was an issue in the US today, and the state decided to allow one viewpoint on a license plate but not the other, then and only then would you have a point. As is, your "point" fails miserably.
Click to expand...
But, it would be ok to offer a gay pride license plate without offering a license plate with an opposing opinon, I'm sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom