• 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

Your assumption is incorrect either way.
There's no indication that the judge is progressive.

Look, I don't know what the political affiliation of the judge is - I can only assume.

As an individual who knows law, I can tell you that a "pro-choice" or "pro-life" license plate doesn't violate any persons rights and it certainly doesn't endorse any idea. With that said - I have no idea why the idea was shot down beyond the fact that another idiot judge denied the pro-choice movement to have their "pro-choice" plates.

IMO, both are stupid ideas considering (as I pointed out in a previous post) that one can just buy a bumper sticker or license plate liner that says "pro-life" or "pro-choice" so what the hell is the problem?
 
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.
I could, but why bother? I don't see them as relevant. I think the questions arise from your misunderstanding and lack of info.
You're free to see my disinclination to respond as a victory on your part if you wish.
Irrelevant.
It's exactly as irrelevant as your charge that the judge is "nothing more than a leftwing hack"
LOL. What Irony. Maybe those issues only exist on your side of the keyboard.
My enjoyment reside entirely here.
 
As an individual who knows law, I can tell you that a "pro-choice" or "pro-life" license plate doesn't violate any persons rights and it certainly doesn't endorse any idea.
Not really the issue is it?

With that said - I have no idea why the idea was shot down beyond the fact that another idiot judge denied the pro-choice movement to have their "pro-choice" plates.
Is there some indication that a judge "judge denied the pro-choice movement to have their "pro-choice" plates" instead of the state legislature as was reported in the article in the OP

IMO, both are stupid ideas considering (as I pointed out in a previous post) that one can just buy a bumper sticker or license plate liner that says "pro-life" or "pro-choice" so what the hell is the problem?
The problem has been stated in what seems to be clear language. But I can state it again if you really think it would help. FYI, it's not related to abortion or the message of the plates.

The state provided a public venue for the expression of political opinion w/o providing equal access for all citizens.
 
Not really the issue is it?

Is there some indication that a judge "judge denied the pro-choice movement to have their "pro-choice" plates" instead of the state legislature as was reported in the article in the OP

The problem has been stated in what seems to be clear language. But I can state it again if you really think it would help. FYI, it's not related to abortion or the message of the plates.

The state provided a public venue for the expression of political opinion w/o providing equal access for all citizens.

Dude you're not even on the same page as I am...

I've tried to explain my position and what the correct ruling should have been as simply as I can.

A) All sides are wrong, B) the judge(s) (both of them) who turned down pro-life and pro-choice plates are wrong C) yes "pro-choice" plates were tried hence the precedent for this ruling D) I could care less about what license plates people want.

It's comical that this is even a debate or discussion considering the fact people can buy bumper stickers (or make their own) that can say or imply anything they want them to.

Hell, our country is going to hell and we're arguing about license plate slogans - despite the overlooked fact people can buy bumper stickers.

Talk about a waste of time and energy.
 
One second you are babbling about constitutional law and now you are asking about a state law?? Can you ever stay on topic??

This whole topic is about a state law supposedly violating the constitution. Which can happen, given the 14th and the doctrine of incorporation, but in this case, has not happened.

Your lack of ability to read is not my problem.

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..

See above. Purchase the program and read it for yourself.

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..

Already responded to this line of pure derpery, and already responded in a way that renders this statement yet another ignorant and inaccurate bit of speculation on your part, and yet another example of your inability to read.

Nowhere did I say that the people of a state have a right to license plates that have little slogans on them, of ANY kind. Neither is the state prohibited from offering them. The Constitution says nothing about this topic.
Furthermore, by offering "Support the Troops" license plates, the state is not in any way obligated to provide "**** the Troops in the @#$ With a Rusty Pole" license plates. The latter is probably a minority view in North Carolina as well, I assume, but it is a valid thought from a free speech perspective, is it not?

Already said all the above. It was already ''nuff said."

How's that crow tasting? Want some salt? Ketchup?
 
Dude you're not even on the same page as I am...
I know. That's what I have been telling you. ; )

I've tried to explain my position and what the correct ruling should have been as simply as I can.
It's not that your position is misunderstood. It's just that it's related to something other than the matter at hand.

A) All sides are wrong...
So the govt should be able to create a public venue which is allocated solely to proponents of particular political opinions?

B) the judge(s) (both of them) who turned down pro-life and pro-choice plates are wrong
Can you point to these judges doing this?
This interpretation of history doesn't seem to be supported by anything.
Here's the actual ruling which notes the history of the matter.
http://localtvwghp.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/nc_choose_life_ruling_121012.pdf

I don't see anything about another judge or a judge "who turned down pro-life and pro-choice plates."

So maybe you're talking about some other case?

C) yes "pro-choice" plates were tried hence the precedent for this ruling
This doesn't mean what it says. There were precedents cited, but the attempt by NC legislators to get a "Respect Choice" plate for the people of NC was not among the precedents cited.

It's comical that this is even a debate or discussion considering the fact people can buy bumper stickers (or make their own) that can say or imply anything they want them to.
Still not the issue.
 
Look, I don't know what the political affiliation of the judge is - I can only assume.

As an individual who knows law, I can tell you that a "pro-choice" or "pro-life" license plate doesn't violate any persons rights and it certainly doesn't endorse any idea. With that said - I have no idea why the idea was shot down beyond the fact that another idiot judge denied the pro-choice movement to have their "pro-choice" plates.IMO, both are stupid ideas considering (as I pointed out in a previous post) that one can just buy a bumper sticker or license plate liner that says "pro-life" or "pro-choice" so what the hell is the problem?

Then you don't know the law as well as you think you do. This is an aspect of public forum doctrine, which is a longstanding aspect of the first amendment. Basically, when the government creates a state sponsored forum for private speech (and a state-created license plate with a political message is such a thing) they cannot discriminate amongst viewpoints. The state's refusal to issue a pro-choice license plate while issuing a pro-life plate constitutes viewpoint discrimination and is, therefore, unconstitutional. By analogy, this is like the state creating a website for members of the public to blog about political issues in their state, but censoring those viewpoints with which it disagreed.
 
I could, but why bother? I don't see them as relevant. I think the questions arise from your misunderstanding and lack of info.
You're free to see my disinclination to respond as a victory on your part if you wish.
It's exactly as irrelevant as your charge that the judge is "nothing more than a leftwing hack"
My enjoyment reside entirely here.

Ya, I already got your non-response response. I didn't need more of the same.

Who determines each side of the political equation equation?, said in another way, who determines if something is "pro choice" or "pro life", when in reality very few people are purely pro-life or purely pro choice. How do you reconcile these issues? Who gets to determine when something is or isn't "political" in nature, when the term itself is arbitrary? Who will construct the litmus test for "politicality"?
 
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.
The idea that there has to a single opposing view is yours. ANY opposing view would fit.

Who determines the initial meaning, and who chooses what it considered its opposite?
The initial meaning in this instance has been determined via the history of the plate itself. This is described in the ruling.
The idea of an "opposite" is yours.

You could even argue the "kids first" logo was "pro-life" if you want to dive into the semantics, could you not?
Sure, but you could instead check the history of how the plate came to be instead. Why bother with sophmoric semantics when the actual info is available?

What of the intermediary views? People that support limited abortions?
Addressed above with the acknowledgement that any opposibng view fits the bill, not a singular opposing view.

What would their logo be?
W/e tf they want I s'pose. :shrug:

And, again, we determines all this?
The people who file to have the custom plates made is how it has been done.
 
Then you don't know the law as well as you think you do. This is an aspect of public forum doctrine, which is a longstanding aspect of the first amendment. Basically, when the government creates a state sponsored forum for private speech (and a state-created license plate with a political message is such a thing) they cannot discriminate amongst viewpoints. The state's refusal to issue a pro-choice license plate while issuing a pro-life plate constitutes viewpoint discrimination and is, therefore, unconstitutional. By analogy, this is like the state creating a website for members of the public to blog about political issues in their state, but censoring those viewpoints with which it disagreed.

Yeah well "pro-life" means "pro-life" it doesn't necessarily mean "anti-abortion."

When it comes to law implications are moot. A judge doesn't have the right to define what "pro-choice" means or how an individual should interpret such a slogan.

Like I said in a previous post - if the license plate said "Oppose Abortion" then there may be a case here but the slogan doesn't say that it says: "pro-life" which is vague at best... "Pro-life" could mean anything, "pro-choice" could mean anything. Those who are fighting this stupid issue tooth and nail may as well say they're "pro-death" and "anti-choice." See how easy that was to spin? I did and I can because the message is so vague.

Like I said who is a judge to define a couple of words or a slogan?

Something tells me that if there was a plate that read: "have a nice day :)" there would be no debate, despite the fact that "have a nice day", "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are the same ideas when it comes to the law, and only a human can misguidedly imply their meanings.

Also, I think it's pretty stupid we're discussing license plate slogans.
 
Yeah well "pro-life" means "pro-life" it doesn't necessarily mean "anti-abortion."

When it comes to law implications are moot. A judge doesn't have the right to define what "pro-choice" means or how an individual should interpret such a slogan.

Like I said in a previous post - if the license plate said "Oppose Abortion" then there may be a case here but the slogan doesn't say that it says: "pro-life" which is vague at best... "Pro-life" could mean anything, "pro-choice" could mean anything. Those who are fighting this stupid issue tooth and nail may as well say they're "pro-death" and "anti-choice." See how easy that was to spin? I did and I can because the message is so vague.

Like I said who is a judge to define a couple of words or a slogan?

Something tells me that if there was a plate that read: "have a nice day :)" there would be no debate, despite the fact that "have a nice day", "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are the same ideas when it comes to the law, and only a human can misguidedly imply their meanings.

Also, I think it's pretty stupid we're discussing license plate slogans.

If you read the opinion, you'll find that the organization that sponsors the plate, and partially benefits from its sale, specifically conditioned its sponsorship on a prohibition against funds stemming from its sale "be[ing] distributed to any agency, organization, business, or other entity that provides, promotes, counsels or refers to abortion." So it's pretty ludicrous to suggest that the meaning of the pro-life plate is anything other than a pro-life message. This is also clear from the legislative record (also referenced in the opinion). In short, the judge didn't have to make any such determination. The proponents of the plate specifically intended it to be pro-life. And yes, pro-life does mean anti-abortion. That's a political term specifically about a stance against abortion.
 
Last edited:
The idea that there has to a single opposing view is yours. ANY opposing view would fit.

The initial meaning in this instance has been determined via the history of the plate itself. This is described in the ruling.
The idea of an "opposite" is yours....any opposibng view fits the bill, not a singular opposing view.

The entire legal argument is destroyed by the state simply creating a "choose death" plate?

Why do I think the plaintiffs in this case wouldn't find that satisfactory?
 
If you read the opinion, you'll find that the organization that sponsors the plate, and partially benefits from its sale, specifically conditioned its sponsorship on a prohibition against funds stemming from its sale "be[ing] distributed to any agency, organization, business, or other entity that provides, promotes, counsels or refers to abortion." So it's pretty ludicrous to suggest that the meaning of the pro-life plate is anything other than a pro-life message. This is also clear from the legislative record (also referenced in the opinion). In short, the judge didn't have to make any such determination. The proponents of the plate specifically intended it to be pro-life. And yes, pro-life does mean anti-abortion. That's a political term specifically about a stance against abortion.

And the government funded Planned Parenthood which provides abortions...
 
And the government funded Planned Parenthood which provides abortions...

Are we starting a new topic then? Because PP has absolutely nothing to do with this one.
 
Are we starting a new topic then? Because PP has absolutely nothing to do with this one.

Well PP should considering the objections over funding for pro-life activities those plates will allegedly fund.
 
The entire legal argument is destroyed by the state simply creating a "choose death" plate?
It'd probably be better if they allowed people to create their own. But it wouldn't destroy the legal argument. It would be adhering to the principle outlined in the decision.

Why do I think the plaintiffs in this case wouldn't find that satisfactory?
I try not to speculate too much about the internal life of other posters. But if you insist, I could pull something out of thin air.
 
And the government funded Planned Parenthood which provides abortions...
Yet another different issue.
the issue here isn't about abortions.
It's about the govt providing access to public venues it creates and controls.
 
Well PP should considering the objections over funding for pro-life activities those plates will allegedly fund.

1) There's nothing "alleged" about it. I'm stating facts as discussed in the judge's opinion and freely admitted to by both sides of this case.

2) You're trying to change the subject. Stop doing that.
 
The entire legal argument is destroyed by the state simply creating a "choose death" plate?

Not unless that's an opposing message that people actually want on their license plates. Remember, the issue here is the government allowing the public to voice one side of a political issue through a medium they control, while the other side is not allowed to do so. The issue would best be resolved by the government allowing the plaintiffs to buy a license plate with the message they actually want to promote (e.g. "support choice" or whatever).
 
Again, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that any particular political slogan or turn of phrase must be issued on custom state license plates.

But one should never be surprised by the potential of activist judges - AKA morons - to hallucinate what they want into the text.
 
1) There's nothing "alleged" about it. I'm stating facts as discussed in the judge's opinion and freely admitted to by both sides of this case.

2) You're trying to change the subject. Stop doing that.

I'm not changing the subject... I'm simply wondering why it is ok that government can fund abortions, yet it is wrong that government funds abortion alternatives via the revenue from license plates?

If anything the question is absolutely relevant considering it has been brought up on numerous occasions in this thread, not to mention the hypocrisy involved given by those who object.

You may as well say it's logical for the government to fund abortions but illogical and illegal for the government to fund abortion prevention and intervention or alternative solutions.
 
Again, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that any particular political slogan or turn of phrase must be issued on custom state license plates.
Yes, states are free to issue plain old license plates without anything extra on them.
But one should never be surprised by the potential of activist judges - AKA morons - to hallucinate what they want into the text.
At least they're not as bad about it as people on the internets.
 
I'm not changing the subject... I'm simply wondering why it is ok that government can fund abortions, yet it is wrong that government funds abortion alternatives?

If anything the question is absolutely relevant considering it has been brought up on numerous occasions in this thread, not to mention the hypocrisy involved given by those who object.

You may as well say it's logical for the government to fund abortions but illogical and illegal for the government to fund abortion prevention and intervention or alternative solutions.

1) Government funding for PP specifically excludes abortion funding.

2) The constitutionality issue has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the organization sponsoring the plate funds anti-abortion activities. The only reason that's relevant at all is because it undercuts your earlier contention that the message on the plate could be interpreted to not be anti-abortion.

3) Since abortion funding is not the topic of this thread, you are changing the subject.
 
I'm not changing the subject... I'm simply wondering why it is ok that government can fund abortions, yet it is wrong that government funds abortion alternatives via the revenue from license plates?
Given that "government funds abortion alternatives via the revenue from license plates" is not the issue at hand, you are indeed talking about another issue.
the issue is still about who is allowed access to govt controlled venues for political speech.
It's really not about abortion. It could have been any political issue afaict.

If anything the question is absolutely relevant considering it has been brought up on numerous occasions in this thread, not to mention the hypocrisy involved given by those who object.
Bigfoot, Illuminati, C'Thulu, UFOs.
How many more times do I need to bring these up before they become relevant? What is the number?

You may as well say it's logical for the government to fund abortions but illogical and illegal for the government to fund abortion prevention and intervention or alternative solutions.
Some people may say all sorts of things. But many of those things, like the snippet of yours quoted above, are different from the issue addressed in this court case.
 
Back
Top Bottom