• 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

Pro-life is actually pro-death.. Don't let the word life fool you.. They would rather allow both the mother and the baby to die than simply allow abortion.. They don't support birth control which prevents countless abortions.. Not to mention, that after the baby is born, they could care less what happens to it.. They don't want to pay for healthcare, education, or anything.. It will just starve to death on the streets if it were up to them.. That is the view of the so called pro-life crowed.. So make no mistake.. The only pro-life choice is pro-choice..

Wow. Trollo-lo-lo-lo-lol, eh? Several truly awful fallacies contained in one short bit of text.

a) Death from pregnancy is rare. Death that can actually be averted by an abortion is extremely rare. People that don't feel that in those extremely rare circumstances that you should save the patient you can save are even more rare than that.

b) Who doesn't "support birth control?" People should buy products to prevent pregnancy and use them if they intend to have one specific type of sex and don't want to become pregnant. This view is essentially universal.

c) You don't have to be a socialist to support the actual human right to life.

d) None of this has anything to do with the topic of this thread.
 
Last edited:
Trollo-lo-lo-lo-lo-lo...

Wow. Trollo-lo-lo-lo-lol, eh? Several truly awful fallacies contained in one short bit of text.

a) Death from pregnancy is rare. Death that can actually be averted by an abortion is extremely rare. People that don't feel that in those extremely rare circumstances that you should save the patient you can save are even more rare than that.

b) Who doesn't "support birth control?" People should buy products to prevent pregnancy and use them if they intend to have one specific type of sex and don't want to become pregnant. This view is essentially universal.

c) You don't have to be a socialist to support the actual human right to life.

d) None of this has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

Still the same old Jay.. Your version of disagreeing with someone is to call them a troll.. How sad..
 
If it is a political view it is quite a benign one, wouldn't you say?
The relative nenignness or malignancy of a view is irrelevant afaict from reading the blurb in the OP.
A "I love America" plate would have to be accompanied by a "I hate America" plate?
Something tells me this Constitution is not what the Founders wrote.
Something tells me that the FF did not want the State to only allow select views to have the benefit of a govt provided public forum.
If it can clearly be established something is political speech, then the govt would have to provide equal access to the venue, the license plates, for people who held opposing view.

The govt can provide no venue. This route would ensure equal opportunity. I suspect this will be the upshot.

Or the gov can provide an easily customizable venue as I suggested upthread. I wish this would be the outcome.
 
Not really, no. The government may not abridge freedom of speech. If they made a law saying pro-abortionists could not talk about their odious, barbaric views, then the state government would be violating the first amendment. Otherwise, nah.

Dude.. License plates are issued by the government, not the people.. Therefore freedom of speech doesn't apply.. What part of that do you not understand??
 
It shows you how deranged and ignorant some judges are.
This is what happens when idiots find themselves in a position of power.
I didn't read the ruling, but I'm assuming (and ironically) it was a First Amendment issue and the judge is a progressive?
emphasis added

He was Reagan appointee. :shrug:

What is conservative about allowing the gov to pick and choose which political voice may use a govt provided public venue? Doesn't seem like a conservative value afaict. It reeks more of authoritarianism and state run societies imho. ymmv
 
Dude.. License plates are issued by the government, not the people.. Therefore freedom of speech doesn't apply.. What part of that do you not understand??

Please cite the law created by the North Carolina legislature that prevents and punishes, by law, the issuing of pro-abortion statements. Such a law would assuredly be unconstitutional.

People have a right to believe that killing the innocent is morally acceptable, and they have a right to tell others of their horrible beliefs so that people can judge them accordingly.

They don't necessarily have a right to have a license plate to help them proclaim their odious views. If the state puts one out, fine. If they don't, also fine. But there's nothing unconstitutional about putting one out OR NOT putting one out.

What part of the plain English text document DO YOU not understand? Probably all of it, at this rate...



Still the same old Jay.. Your version of disagreeing with someone is to call them a troll.. How sad..

This statement is, was, and always will be...

Not to mention, that after the baby is born, they could care less what happens to it.

... exactly what you're trying to deny it to be. It's bad faith rubbish.
 
Last edited:
If, as you claim, Christians are having abortions then "they" can hardly be Christians.
This is true as Christian never sin. Even a single sin disqualifies you from receiving grace. "Grace" is really a misnomer as one has to earn redemption from original sin by never sinning, ever.
One single sin is all it takes to keep you from being a Christian.

Everyone knows that.
 
Even if it was "propaganda" it shouldn't be banned because it breaks no law, nor does it violate the constitution.
It's not banned, afaict.

However there is no legal reason why someone shouldn't have the right to have a plate that reads that.
Current evidence indicates that they do indeed still have a right to such a thing. The court doesn't seem to have said what you think it has said.

In order to make such a ruling...
The judge seems to have made a ruling which is different from the one you're imagining he made, afaict. ymmv
 
It's not the "pro life" croweds fault that the pro-choice crowed didn't step up and petition for a "pro-choice" plate...
If you read a little of the article linked in the OP, you might notice that "the pro-choice crowed" did make such a petition.
 
Precisely my point.

"Choose life" can mean different things to different people. I'm sure we can all agree that George Michael is different.

Also, I don't want to know why you remember George Michael (and Wham) sporting a "choose life" t-shirt hahahaha.

Why waste brain space with useful info when there is so much useless tangent data to process? It is easy to look up the important stuff.....(i.e. I used to watch a lot of VH1 "I love the ...." shows)
 
I find it interesting the sort of illogical dualism found in the idea of "you must present the opposing view". There is not a black and white divide on abortion, there are many shades of grey. Who determines the initial meaning, and who chooses what it considered its opposite? You could even argue the "kids first" logo was "pro-life" if you want to dive into the semantics, could you not? What of the intermediary views? People that support limited abortions? What would their logo be? And, again, we determines all this?
I think these conflicts exits mostly on your side of the keyboard.

What sort of absurdity is all this? Almost as absurd as the complete ignorance of the constitution by a judge who is nothing more than a leftwing hack and/or someone trying to score political points for some reason or other. Don't bother continuing to yammer about it being anything else.
He's a Reagan appointee.
I think it's absurd how quickly things devolve into an attempt to discredit someone rather than dealing with the issues at hand. But that's just me.
 
Please cite the law created by the North Carolina legislature that prevents and punishes, by law, the issuing of pro-abortion statements.

One second you are babbling about constitutional law and now you are asking about a state law?? Can you ever stay on topic??

I don't have to find a state law because this issue is about the constitution.. You do know that is federal law don't you?? Which trumps state?? The ruling was about the constitution and not state law..

Come on Jay.. Get with the program here..

Government entities are not protected under free speech.. Having said that, in this case, the free speech of the people is violated when both views of this issue are not equally voiced..

This is why it is very dangerous for the government to get involved in political propaganda..

You are just pissed off because this is an issue you agree with and you can't stand it that a ruling has been made against your views.. Well.. You conservatives claim you want to live by the constitution.. So live by it.. Nuff said..
 
Last edited:
Not really, no. The government may not abridge freedom of speech. If they made a law saying pro-abortionists could not talk about their odious, barbaric views, then the state government would be violating the first amendment. Otherwise, nah.
So it'd be cool in your opinion, if the gov provided access to a public venue in which only the "pro-abortionist" view was allowed? They wouldn't be banning non-"pro-abortionist" expression of views.
 
Even if it was "propaganda" it shouldn't be banned because it breaks no law, nor does it violate the constitution.

I'm pro-life but I don't understand why anyone would want a plate that reads "choose life" when you can just buy a bumper sticker that says that. However there is no legal reason why someone shouldn't have the right to have a plate that reads that.

In order to make such a ruling a judge would have to conclude that everyone who is pro-life is religious and that is not true. The judge may as well say all atheists must be pro-choice.... The judge made an idiotic and misguided ruling here and it will certainly be overturned.

Besides, "choose life" could mean a lot of things from abortions to individuals who had a drug or alcohol addiction and became sober or to some who are just happy to be alive... The way you interpret the slogan is moot. Everyone doesn't think like you.

You have completely confused the subject. It's not being banned and the ruling has nothing to do with the slogan being religious.

The court ruled that NC could not offer one plate and reject the countering position.

You can LIE all you want "choose life" is obviously a slogan of the pro life movement. Informed people know that it has nothing to do with alcohol.

That does not mean it is forbidden but the state cannot promote one view while denying the opportunity to express the other.
 
Offer a "pro-death" or "pro-choice" plate then...

So what if the money goes to an organization that provides alternative solutions...

It's not the "pro life" croweds fault that the pro-choice crowed didn't step up and petition for a "pro-choice" plate...

They did. There were 6 attempts to amend the enabling act all defeated.
 
Please cite the law created by the North Carolina legislature that prevents and punishes, by law, the issuing of pro-abortion statements. Such a law would assuredly be unconstitutional.
Why the red herring?
the ruling isn't about "statements."
It's about the govt creating a venue for the expression of political ideas and then limiting the participation in that forum to only select citizenry.

People have a right to believe that killing the innocent is morally acceptable, and they have a right to tell others of their horrible beliefs so that people can judge them accordingly.
Freedom is, in part, the freedom to be wrong and stupid.

They don't necessarily have a right to have a license plate to help them proclaim their odious views. If the state puts one out, fine. If they don't, also fine. But there's nothing unconstitutional about putting one out OR NOT putting one out.
If you read the blurb quoted in the OP, you may notice that this isn't the issue.
The issue at hand is whether the govt can offer a public venue for political expression to only some political views instead of all political views.
 
It's not the pro-life crowed that wants the plates fault there is no alternative plate that says "pro-choice."

It will be overturned.

It won't. I doubt it will even get further hearing.
 
I find it interesting the sort of illogical dualism found in the idea of "you must present the opposing view". There is not a black and white divide on abortion, there are many shades of grey. Who determines the initial meaning, and who chooses what it considered its opposite? You could even argue the "kids first" logo was "pro-life" if you want to dive into the semantics, could you not? What of the intermediary views? People that support limited abortions? What would their logo be? And, again, we determines all this?

What sort of absurdity is all this? Almost as absurd as the complete ignorance of the constitution by a judge who is nothing more than a leftwing hack and/or someone trying to score political points for some reason or other. Don't bother continuing to yammer about it being anything else.

If some other view on abortion wants a plate they should get it.

Those claiming the judge was wrong have shown nothing but ignorance on constitutional matters. They have even argued he should have created pro choice plates which is a power he clearly does not have.
 
If some other view on abortion wants a plate they should get it.

Those claiming the judge was wrong have shown nothing but ignorance on constitutional matters. They have even argued he should have created pro choice plates which is a power he clearly does not have.
I like the assumption that the judge ruled on spurious grounds based on his personal beliefs. That assumption may say more about the assumer than the judge. idk
 
If some other view on abortion wants a plate they should get it.

Those claiming the judge was wrong have shown nothing but ignorance on constitutional matters. They have even argued he should have created pro choice plates which is a power he clearly does not have.

What he said.

Those attempting to claim the judge is attempting to abridge the freedom of speech are only using one eye to view this. The judge ruled the state politicians abridged that right by failing to approve a pro-choice plate.

The claim the pro-life plate could mean anything but the abortion issue is as false as the claim man rode dinosaurs.

The idea that a Love America plate must have a Hate America plate might be just what the Founders wanted as freedom of speech when writing the Constitution. First they had criticizing their government, England before breaking away. Second a majority were set against a loyalty oath, or pledge- they might see the Love America plate as just that. (later as some gained the Presidency they found themselves not so much in love with citizenry criticizing the Government, but what the hey)

Some of those apposed to the Judge's ruling opine the judge could just wave his magic gavel and create a pro-choice plate. Ummm that would be an activist judge by most 'conservative' yardsticks.

I'll bet a shiny Free State of Texas Nickel the ruling stands... :peace
 
Perhaps you should have. The judge denied NC from printing "choose life" plates and issueing them because the state denied pro-choice (its opposite in the abortion topic) 6 times to have thier own slogan on the plates. His ruling was based on the state denying free speech to one group while allowing it for another group in the same state sponsored venue.

My assumption was correct either way...

I wouldn't have a problem with a "pro-choice" or "pro-life" plate if I was a judge. Both don't infringe on any civil liberties nor does it imply government is indorsing any position (not that even that is a constitutional issue).

I think the better question to ask is who the hell would want such a slogan on their license plate considering they make something called a bumper sticker - not to mention license plate liners.
 
It shows you how deranged and ignorant some judges are.
This is what happens when idiots find themselves in a position of power.
I didn't read the ruling, but I'm assuming (and ironically) it was a First Amendment issue and the judge is a progressive?
My assumption was correct either way...
Your assumption is incorrect either way.
There's no indication that the judge is progressive.
 
I think these conflicts exits mostly on your side of the keyboard.

What conflicts? I asked several questions that MUST be answered. The problem is, as you well know by your trite responses, you can't answer them.

He's a Reagan appointee.

Irrelevant.

I think it's absurd how quickly things devolve into an attempt to discredit someone rather than dealing with the issues at hand. But that's just me.


LOL. What Irony. Maybe those issues only exist on your side of the keyboard.
 
Back
Top Bottom