Alabama judge overturns law protecting Confederate monuments

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...rotecting-confederate-monuments-idUSKCN1P92CS

(Reuters) - An Alabama judge has voided a 2017 state law preventing the removal or alteration of historic memorials, saying it infringed citizens’ free-speech rights and effectively enshrined a pro-Confederacy message in the southern U.S. state.

The ruling was the latest blow in an ongoing national fight over memorials to the pro-slavery Confederacy, which lost in the 1861-1865 U.S. Civil War. Backers of the monuments call them a tribute to history and heritage, while opponents decry them as powerful tributes to institutionalized racism.
======================================================
After 150+ years we are still fighting the Civil War in the deep South.

The law did not stand much chance anyway, not the way it was crafted and why it was crafted.

As for the deep South, sadly this debate will rage on for generations to come.

Save your Confederate money, boys. The South will rise again.

1: Here's hoping that the State doesn't appeal it.

2: I disagree with the judges reasoning. People most certainly have a right to free speech, however, they do not have a right to be heard. This ruling essentially states that state officials HAVE to listen to people. This could set dangerous precedent. One that I don't think SJW's really want to set. Remember that one lady (can't remember her name now) who refused to fill out forms for SSM? What she did was a form of free speech. With this ruling she, or someone else, could possibly come back, point to it and say "hey, you have to hear me!" and officials would not be able to fire her as doing so would be in retaliation for her expression of free speech.

Kal'Stang said:

2: I disagree with the judges reasoning. People most certainly have a right to free speech, however, they do not have a right to be heard. This ruling essentially states that state officials HAVE to listen to people. This could set dangerous precedent. One that I don't think SJW's really want to set.

Click to expand...

You read a very brief article about the decision. You don't have legal training or experience. As much as you might wish it were, legal analysis is not reading an article about a decision, then making up bull**** that sounds like it supports an opinion knowingly uttered from your position of complete ignorance. Bull such as:

Kal'Stang said:

Remember that one lady (can't remember her name now) who refused to fill out forms for SSM? What she did was a form of free speech. With this ruling she, or someone else, could possibly come back, point to it and say "hey, you have to hear me!" and officials would not be able to fire her as doing so would be in retaliation for her expression of free speech.

Click to expand...

Mr Person said:

You read a very brief article about the decision. You don't have legal training or experience. As much as you might wish it were, legal analysis is not reading an article about a decision, then making up bull**** that sounds like it supports an opinion knowingly uttered from your position of complete ignorance. Bull such as:

Click to expand...

Big Grin! It takes convoluted thinking to connect the former Kentucky clerk, Kim Davis, to this judge's ruling.

This judge, IMO, appears to have struck another blow to Pro-Confederacy Supporters.

In Florida, the People have a Right to be Heard. Government in the Sunshine Laws regulate Public Meetings. These meetings routinely integrate a Public Comment component, with each speaker subject to a time limit and a duty to maintain reasonable decorum.

Trippy Trekker said:

Big Grin! It takes convoluted thinking to connect the former Kentucky clerk, Kim Davis, to this judge's ruling.

Click to expand...

Yeah...it can really rub me the wrong way. I know people want to talk about legal stuff, as law obviously affects everything. But man, so many do not seem to understand that legal analysis isn't taking a term, then announcing one's personal opinion about what that term does or does not describe. At any rate, Kim Davis argued both free speech and free exercise of religion, but was slapped down on each front. (Specifically, that because the average citizen does not have the right to issue marriage licenses, her refusal to do it in her official capacity was NOT "speech'). She was ultimately held in contempt of court for continuing to deny marriage licenses to gay people. But because of how the contempt order was worded, she was able to escape further wrath of the courts. Kal's fundamental claim - that refusing to grant the licenses is free speech - is wrong, and as usual, the full story is a lot more complicated. Law is a pain in the ass like that....

I mean, it'd be like me and you having an argument about the best way to place a heart stent in an 80 year old with hyptertension. What the hell do we expect we know about it?



If anyone wants to try to track down a publicly available decision, this one - coming two years later in her attention-seeking quest - summarizes the prior proceedings well.

Miller v. Davis, 267 F. Supp. 3d 961, 973 (E.D. Ky. 2017)

At over two pages in length in those books (small print, big books), it's a rather lengthy summary. And further, the actual decision on the order blocking her from denying the licenses, which the 6th Cir later declined to stay and SCOTUS didn't touch, is here:

Miller v. Davis, 123 F. Supp. 3d 924, 933 (E.D. Ky. 2015)

I have no idea if it's still around, but there was this thing called "LoisLaw" that let you find cases from around the country. However, its search engine was pretty clunky.

But again, that's all just for anyone genuinely interested in nailing down what happened.



OK, a whole lot more than I intended to type at first. Moving on....

Trippy Trekker said:

This judge, IMO, appears to have struck another blow to Pro-Confederacy Supporters.

In Florida, the People have a Right to be Heard. Government in the Sunshine Laws regulate Public Meetings. These meetings routinely integrate a Public Comment component, with each speaker subject to a time limit and a duty to maintain reasonable decorum.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'll see if I can find whatever the decision in this thread is actually about. I actually am kind of curious. The article's description sounds a bit odd to me. I hate that. They never give you all the relevant information, such as what exactly the posture of the case is (who is arguing what, what exactly is the argument, what the particular type of lawsuit is, etc). They don't even provide a case name, though I suppose it should be easy enough to pin down with the available info.


(My LEXIS sub lets me search for anything federally, anything in MA, and can only open other-state cases if cited by a MA case. Saves a couple grand a year, I think. If I ever need to do a full "50-state survey" (what the law is on a point in every state), there's a law library in Boston that has all-state Westlaw access and a year's membership is way cheaper than buying the all-state access myself)

Mr Person said:

You read a very brief article about the decision. You don't have legal training or experience. As much as you might wish it were, legal analysis is not reading an article about a decision, then making up bull**** that sounds like it supports an opinion knowingly uttered from your position of complete ignorance. Bull such as:

Click to expand...

So the judge didn't say: "Graffeo said in his ruling that the citizens of Birmingham, which is majority black, are guaranteed a right to free speech and that the act infringed on the city’s right to engage in a specific, expressive message."?

By the by..since when do CITIES have a "right" "to engage in a specific, expressive message"?

Mr Person said:

Kal'Stang said:

2: I disagree with the judges reasoning. People most certainly have a right to free speech, however, they do not have a right to be heard. This ruling essentially states that state officials HAVE to listen to people. This could set dangerous precedent. One that I don't think SJW's really want to set.

Click to expand...

You read a very brief article about the decision. You don't have legal training or experience. As much as you might wish it were, legal analysis is not reading an article about a decision, then making up bull**** that sounds like it supports an opinion knowingly uttered from your position of complete ignorance. Bull such as:

Kal'Stang said:

Remember that one lady (can't remember her name now) who refused to fill out forms for SSM? What she did was a form of free speech. With this ruling she, or someone else, could possibly come back, point to it and say "hey, you have to hear me!" and officials would not be able to fire her as doing so would be in retaliation for her expression of free speech.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

So the judge didn't say: "Graffeo said in his ruling that the citizens of Birmingham, which is majority black, are guaranteed a right to free speech and that the act infringed on the city’s right to engage in a specific, expressive message."?

Click to expand...

Do you not understand what saying "Bull**** such as", followed by a colon, followed by a quote means? It means I'm calling the next-quoted thing bull****.

Because you know I'm right both that you don't know what the hell you're talking about when it comes to interpreting a decision AND you don't know what the hell the Davis decision was about, you're doing the usual. You go into snotty attack mode with me.

:roll:



PS, no, what that lady did was not "free speech". You lie. The courts slapped that down. I repeat

Mr Person said:

<snip> At any rate, Kim Davis argued both free speech and free exercise of religion, but was slapped down on each front. (Specifically, that because the average citizen does not have the right to issue marriage licenses, her refusal to do it in her official capacity was NOT "speech'). She was ultimately held in contempt of court for continuing to deny marriage licenses to gay people. But because of how the contempt order was worded, she was able to escape further wrath of the courts. Kal's fundamental claim - that refusing to grant the licenses is free speech - is wrong, and as usual, the full story is a lot more complicated. Law is a pain in the ass like that....

<snip>

If anyone wants to try to track down a publicly available decision, this one - coming two years later in her attention-seeking quest - summarizes the prior proceedings well.

Miller v. Davis, 267 F. Supp. 3d 961, 973 (E.D. Ky. 2017)

At over two pages in length in those books (small print, big books), it's a rather lengthy summary. And further, the actual decision on the order blocking her from denying the licenses, which the 6th Cir later declined to stay and SCOTUS didn't touch, is here:

Miller v. Davis, 123 F. Supp. 3d 924, 933 (E.D. Ky. 2015)

I have no idea if it's still around, but there was this thing called "LoisLaw" that let you find cases from around the country. However, its search engine was pretty clunky.

But again, that's all just for anyone genuinely interested in nailing down what happened.

<snip>

Click to expand...

As for the judge's reasoning? Well, why don't you go find the actual decision and see if you can adequately summarize it for us, instead of reading a bare-bones article about the decision and trying to play expert?

Kal'Stang said:

By the by..since when do CITIES have a "right" "to engage in a specific, expressive message"?

Click to expand...

Oh dear. You really do not get it, do you?

Legal analysis is not reading an article about a decision, then announcing your personal opinion about what words mean. Why don't you try starting with the decision? If you don't like something it says, go read the cases the decision cites to see if the judge misapplied them. And the cases they cite. And so on. Keep reading until you can divine a rule based on the sum total of rulings relative to the specific facts of each case, then measure that against the specific facts of the case at hand (NOT an article about it), and then you might just be approaching a position from which to criticize the judge.

Until then you're just running your mouth and hoping that obstinate sounds paper over the fact that you simply don't know what you're talking about and don't even have the tools you would require to know whether you knew what you were talking about.

Capisce?

Probably not, but hey. I tried.