The Liberals Have Really Stepped in it This Time…

Judge finds NC ‘Choose Life’ plates unconstitutional

myfox8.com

RALEIGH, N.C. – A federal judge has ruled it is unconstitutional for North Carolina to issue pro-life license plates unless…

 

Here is the takeaway line…
“This is a great victory for the free speech rights of all North Carolinians, regardless of their point of view on reproductive freedom,” said Chris Brook, legal director of the ACLU-NCLF.

Brook said the government cannot create an avenue to express one side of a political issue while denying an equal opportunity to citizens with an opposing view.”

This is quite interesting… and at once damning to all the government-sanctioned intellectual monopolies held by the Left.

Given the Federal Court’s decision, for instance,

Should the taxpayers support Darwinism exclusively being taught in schools, while at the same time denying equal opportunity and access for those who espouse Intelligent Design theory?”

Given the Federal Court’s decision, why should the taxpayers be forced to support Planned Parenthood, and at the same time not be forced to support Pro-Life organizations?

In their zeal to utilize the courts to push their agenda, it appears that ‘progressives’ have really stuck it to themselves this time.

About these ads

58 thoughts on “The Liberals Have Really Stepped in it This Time…

  1. Leo Pusateri Post author

    The whole point of the article was that the court ruled that the government cannot fund an outlet for one political view while not equally funding other political views…

    If taken to its logical conclusion, this puts a lot of liberal-held, government-sanctioned intellectual monopolies (i.e., State-run universities, etc) at risk…

      1. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock)

        And why is this held to be a “political” view?

        It shouldn’t be. Killing (or not killing) your unborn child has absolutely NOTHING to do with politics. But then most issues championed by the Left have nothing to do with politics, other than they help the Left win elections. Conversely, arguing the conservative side of social issues doesn’t help the Right attract socially conscious voters to the polls. By all accounts social Conservatives stayed home in droves last month. What’s really ironic is that the party whose underlying goal is to limit individual freedom wins elections by running on the “freedom” to kill unborn children. I guess they’re just better at marketing.

      2. Amazona

        ” I guess they’re just better at marketing.”

        That’s a nice way of putting it. It’s much kinder than saying their cynical view of the intelligence of the public is too often proved to be right.

  2. Retired Spook

    There’s a simple solution. North Carolina just needs to offer a license plate that says “Choose Death” across the top.

    1. Amazona

      Exactly—in Colorado we have a “Choose Life” license plate with a lovely columbine (the state flower) on it. Perhaps a “Choose Death” plate decorated with tasteful skull and crossbones motif…

      And I know someone who is “pro-choice” who has one of these “Choose Life” plates. Seems that choosing life is not just about letting inconvenient children live. Gee, it could even reflect the attitudes of the anti-execution folks.

      1. Amazona

        “…. it could even reflect the attitudes of the anti-execution folks.”

        Or vegetarians………………..

      2. neocon01

        Riiiight Pee Wee

        HILLARY HEALTH SCARE

        Scared WHO??
        ted kennedydrunk? afraid she would take his spot in hell?

      3. Amazona

        neo, as this particular symbol has been adopted as showing “…allegiance to the white supremacist movement..” I’d probably say no, though the origin of Planned Parenthood and the percentage of black babies killed in the womb might lead one to see a connection.

        I was just thinking of something to properly indicate a lack of respect for human life, unless it fits into certain ever-decreasing criteria.

      4. Amazona

        Though I am getting tired of your incessant listing of offenses by blacks and Muslims, I have to admit that when a representative of a religion states “We love death more than you love life” it does fit into a “Choose Death” motif.

        However, I think you are working overtime to drag in your favorite bogeymen and drag the comments into a very different direction. The concern of opposition to the “Choose Life” license plate seemed to be that it promoted respect for the unborn and there was no effort to create a license plate that conveyed the belief that the unborn have no right to life.

        I don’t think race and Islam have anything to do with this, but these are certainly the directions your mind snaps to whenever anything comes up.

      5. neocon01

        ama

        actually I mentioned NOTHING about race, you stated a skull and cross bones on the plate, and the SS nazi symbol came to mind, you mentioned blacks being aborted by PP and stated white supremacists have adopted the nazi symbols which was the furthest thing from my mind.

        the choose death license plate and the star and crescent was tongue in cheek, although they do go hand in hand.

        what I do post is usually an answer to what our libs accuse us of, I cant help it i 98% happens to be spewed by black racists and is available with any google search.

        I dont view anybody as bogey men but there are a lot of communists, and muslins who could be put in that category.

  3. Amazona

    “Brook said the government cannot create an avenue to express one side of a political issue while denying an equal opportunity to citizens with an opposing view.””

    Did North Carolina pass a law denying the right of pro abortion people to say so on their license plates? Did North Carolina “DENY” anyone the right to express an opposing point of view?

    This claim of DENYING people the right or ability to do things seems to be a new theme of the RRL—just as the right of people who believe in the teachings of a certain religion to not pay for birth control because of their religious beliefs is suddenly spun, via lies, into the false claim that they are DENYING the ability of women to have birth control.

    No, no one was DENIED anything. Women at Catholic schools have absolute freedom to buy birth control and use birth control.

    But not only was this lie repeated, over and over again, it was expanded to the insanity of claiming that not only Catholics but the entire nation, under a Mormon president, would DENY ACCESS, not just to birth control but to all HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN.

    (To podiatry? Dermatology? What would be the cutoff age to differentiate between girls and women? How would this DENIAL OF ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE work? Evidently women could not be admitted to hospitals, have surgery, get prescriptions, or even consult doctors, as all of these would require ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE, which somehow, for some reason, would be DENIED . Would the evil Right post guards at clinics and medical offices to turn away anyone appearing suspiciously feminine? It was the most bizarrely stupid claim imaginable, yet it was swallowed and repeated.)

    Yet nothing was denied, other than the ability to get insurance paid for by a Catholic institution to cover something that goes against Catholic teaching. No effort was made, hinted at or implied regarding an effort to interfere with, much less DENY, any access to birth control at all.

    But the lie lived, and probably still does, among the stupidest and most gullible.

    And now some moron is trying to claim that supporting a position is the same as DENYING the right to support an opposing position. And I’m sure that to some, this makes sense.

    1. irisspirit

      When Catholic hospitals stop taking tax payer funding then they will have the right to deny female employees medical coverage provided by all other businesses of the same size. Catholic hospitals are big business – not just religious enterprises. Women of all faiths work and use Catholic hospitals – which is exactly what these hospitals want. They do in fact deny access to reproductive choices if the women employed by these hospitals have to go to another insurance provider to procure medications that other women have access to with the same insurance providers because they work for an organization that is not run by a church.

      1. Amazona

        Velma, do you realize that no employer is required to provide health insurance? Any business has the complete freedom to decide what it will provide. Where do you get your strange and utterly wrong ideas?

        And no, there is absolutely NO denial of reproductive choice to any women just because an organization does not pay for birth control. Again, this is an utterly stupid statement. Any woman can choose to engage in sexual activity, unfettered by the religious beliefs of her business or school

        1. A woman makes the CHOICE to work for a company, such as a hospital, or attend a school, such as Loyola, with the full advance knowledge that this institution will not pay for birth control coverage. This is a CHOICE made by the woman.

        2. The insurance paid for by Catholic institutions covers medical exams, just not products related to birth control. The exams account for most of the cost of birth control.

        3. The actual cost of birth control is quite small and can easily be borne by an employed woman or even a student—it is about the cost of two Starbucks venti lattes a month. In other words, the CHOICE left up to the woman is how she will spend her money—on a texting plan for her phone, on designer coffee, or on the personal responsibility for her own sexual CHOICES.

        What you are advocating, from your position on the far Left, is depriving people of religious freedom, in the name of reproductive freedom, as if the ability to worship as one wishes is in any way comparable to the ability to screw as one wishes. Perhaps to people like you the two ARE equal in value and significance, but in terms of actual RIGHTS there is an inalienable right to freedom of worship in this country, and nothing at all in our Constitution about the freedom to fornicate, much less the freedom to fornicate without having to take personal responsibility for the choice to do so.

        4. There is no moral. much less legal, imperative for any institution to subsidize sexual activity, which is after all a CHOICE.

      2. Amazona

        But your argument, Velma, is that by paying money to help fund the health care provided by the Catholic hospitals, the government has bought their Constitutional right to worship as they CHOOSE.

        Interesting.

        I guess I missed the part of the Constitution where it says that freedom of religion and religious belief can be purchased by the government.

      3. Cluster

        When Catholic hospitals stop taking tax payer funding then they will have the right to deny female employees medical coverage provided by all other businesses of the same size.

        Then change federal law so they can employ who they want, and treat who they want.

        Secondly, the female employees of these institutions have the right to work somewhere else, and are not forced into their employment.

      4. irisspirit

        Enough. We have gotten rid of other antagonists who only come here to attack and insult and you seem to be trying to be next. Keep a civil tone and address issues or you can look for another blog to use to insult and attack. //Moderator

    1. tiredoflibbs

      Liberal proggies support the “right” to abortion because they don’t want the government coming between a woman (the patient) and the doctor.

      While of course, passing and implementing government controlled health care, which comes between the patient and doctor to control health costs.

  4. M. Noonan

    Our liberals are capable of the most amazing idiocy – remember, they are in favor of both gay rights and the anti-gay Islamists (and the additional kicker: they favor the Islamists because they are anti-Jewish/anti-American). They can square this circle of “banning a bit of speech in favor of free speech” because they are too obtuse to see the contradiction.

    1. Amazona

      Not only that, they narrow the definition of “gay rights” the use of a single word. They don’t fight for the “rights” of gay couples to enter into legally sanctioned commitments with the same privileges and restrictions as those of marriage—-their whole focus is on the use of the WORD

      I understand this. I have a friend who was seduced by a charismatic older woman when she was in high school and then believed this branded her as a lesbian. When she confided her secret to me, saying “I am gay” my response was “Are you sure?” This took her by surprise and she said “I have sex with women” to which I replied “So?”

      We went on to talk about how young girls, particularly in boarding schools, had been involved in relationships with other girls and then matured, married, and been happily heterosexual for the rest of their lives, and she was so relieved, because she had been brainwashed by the older lesbian community into believing she was defined by her actions and locked into this identity for life.

      One of the things that she talked about was the sense of isolation from the community, the sense of being different. I remember the pain in her voice when she talked about this, and I can truly understand and empathize with the yearning to fit in. I think this obsession with the use of the traditional term “marriage” is really just a desire to deny the difference these people feel, and a desperate hope that if they graft on a traditional word no one will notice that the relationship is different.

      It is sad. It is also a tacit admission that homosexual relationships are lacking something. I have always thought that if gay people really do NOT feel that their sexual orientation is wrong, they would happily come up with a word that celebrates the difference, that is theirs and theirs alone.

    2. irisspirit

      Seriously Noonan, do you have any factual data to back up your idiotic statements? Liberals are anti-Jewish? Anti-American? Just based upon your biased attitudes? Just because you make such statements does not make them true or factual.

      1. Amazona

        Velma, perhaps you see the treatment of Israel as a pro-Jewish act but most do not. Perhaps you see the efforts to diminish America as pro-American, but most do not.

        And to have YOU, of all people, storm in here and have hissy fits over your claims that OTHER people are dishonest and idiotic is just too funny for words. You need a mirror.

      2. irisspirit

        Enough. We have gotten rid of other antagonists who only come here to attack and insult and you seem to be trying to be next. Keep a civil tone and address issues or you can look for another blog to use to insult and attack. //Moderator

      3. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)

        Dear Fraudulent Attorney,

        First, I must know, what is a “non-religious hospital”? Hospitals perform medical procedures and apply infirmary technology. They are not religious as a functionary. Religious organizations operate and own (sometimes) hospitals and medical facilities. The function of the owner/operator is religious but not the operation of the facility.

        Conditions of employment are at the discretion of the employer provided those conditions are compliant with legal requirements and non-discriminatory. Religion as a requirement is upheld by the Court if the function of the job is religious in nature or outcome. You (idiotic) suggestion that Catholic hospitals hire Catholic doctors or treat only catholic patients proves you have no clue about the Law, you are a fraud.

        Same is true of patient payment; the hospitals are prohibited from accepting patients whose payment program is predicated on government supplied insurance, meaning the hospitals must take “taxpayer” money or they cannot operate. There are qualifications to that insurance, they may not accept as a practice Social Security insurance (Medical etc.) payments, but the restriction on patient non-treatment requires a covert activity like Michelle Obama’s patient dumping scheme.

        Finally, nit-wit-fake-lawyer, if you knew even the most elementary information regarding the application of Obamacare and the controversy surrounding it you’d have know that the Lemon ruling applies here;

        “First, the statute must have a secular legislation purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’”

        But, you don’t so I again conclude you are not a real lawyer, but a fraud posing as a lawyer. Or an insufferable idiot, which … in your case is not a mutually exclusive condition.

  5. Jeremiah

    I was working in a high shool earlier today helping to hook up some tv…I was in the janitor’s room, and across the hallway there was a classroom full of kids, and I kind of tuned in with my ears to hear what the teacher was talking about with his students…and just happened that he was talking with them about politics, and that a certain faction were “clueless,” “don’t know what they’re talking about” when it comes to the political landscape.
    Not 100% positive, but I would suspect he was talking about conservatives, and Fox news.

    It’s constitutional to talk about the state’s politics and atheism with students, but somehow “unconsititutional” to read a passage from Scripture, or say a prayer with students.
    You see, it has nothing to do with Obama’s so-called “charisma” or ability to win over people…but it has more to do with indoctrination of future generations in our public schools, dumbing them down.

    1. irisspirit

      It is a sin to bear false witness against another. Truthfulness is important and is a testimony of one’s character. To accuse a teacher of making certain statements when you are not “100% positive” is not being truthful. Then you go on Jeremiah to state that it is “unconstitutional” to read a passage from Scripture or say a prayer with students” is also not truthful. If a student or group of students ask you to say a prayer with them it is not unconstitutional to do so, or to even read a passage of Scripture – if they ask you or a teacher to do so and the teacher has no objections. You just may not force students to say prayers or listen to Scripture. Not everyone is a Christian in our public schools and even protestant religious groups have different beliefs. It is a parents duty to teach their children their religious beliefs. That task does not belong to and is not appropriate in a public school. I would have never allowed a public school teacher to teach my children about Christianity. I wanted them to be raised in my church with the theology of my religious beliefs.
      Do you have children Jeremiah? Who do you think is best at teaching your children about your religious beliefs?

      1. Amazona

        And, Velma, as you so often lie here, you might refrain from lecturing on the sin of bearing false witness.

      2. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)

        I renew my objection to allowing this fraud to continue pose as a lawyer. Velma is either willfully ignorant or the most brain-damaged attorney in US history.

        Let’s start with Engle v. Vitale, which has only been around for 50 years, followed by Wallace v. Jaffree which disallowed on Constitutional basis state sponsored prayer, or meditation even if the students are given the option of non-participating. Followed by Lee v. Weiserman which ruled unconstitutional clergy led prayer of benedictions without state sanction, which gave way to Santa Fe v. Doe which extended the ban to student led prayer or demonstrations of faith or religion.

        In short, Jeremiah is much more accurate at guessing than Velma is at actually citing controlling legal authority.

      3. irisspirit

        Enough. We have gotten rid of other antagonists who only come here to attack and insult and you seem to be trying to be next. Keep a civil tone and address issues or you can look for another blog to use to insult and attack. //Moderator

      4. tiredoflibbs

        Velma the clueless: “IF a STUDENT or group of STUDENTS wish to pray together, they may do so without violating the constitution.”

        Are you serious?

        How would praying be a violation of the Constitution?

        How would asking a teacher to pray with them be a violation?

        What basis do you have for even proposing your statements?

        Let’s see if this “lawyer” has any clue…..

      5. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)

        IF a STUDENT or group of STUDENTS wish to pray together, they may do so without violating the constitution

        But, Velam-fraud, that’s not what you wrote, let’s re-visit what you actually wrote, shall we?

        If a student or group of students ask you to say a prayer with them it is not unconstitutional to do so, or to even read a passage of Scripture –if they ask you or a teacher to do so and the teacher has no objections.

        now can everyone see that Velma is a liar?

        Sure you can.

        Even in Velma’s infantile “Oh yeah, well yes it IS” rebuttal, she wrote “ They may even invite a teacher to pray with them and if the teacher has no problem with praying with students it is not a violation of the constitution.

        Since one of us has actually been a “teacher” in a government school, and one of us is a fraud that cannot complete a reading assignment I’ll direct you, one again Velma to the relevant authority.

        Read Slowly Stupid Person; Wallace v. Jaffree declared student requests and student directed participation in religious observances to be unconstitutional. Santa Fe v. Doe ,/i>ruled that student run prayer or any student run religious observation, even if the administration or adults condone or acknowledge such, is unconstitutional.

        The only exception to the prohibition is under student run religious organizations or meetings not attended or sanctioned by the school administration. Teachers may be invited to private, voluntary prayer beyond the scope of the school, and may attend only if not doing so as a representative of the school nor may they lead or participate beyond that of observer/participant. since it is infeasible to attend/participate and notbe a teacher, teacher attendance is ill-advised, and discouraged by the administrations since, by its nature it can be construed as unconstitutional.

        As to my tone; I am not responsible if you feel like an idiot when I address your ignorance Velma, Study harder and try to keep up.

      6. Amazona

        Velma has always dumped lies on this blog.

        As for her legal cred, she has discussed the need to “indite” someone.

        I rest my case……………….

      7. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)

        That’s only because the “eigh” is silent in Inditement.

        As in, her oblivious buffoonery is a serious inditement of of the Legal Educational System, or even the Primary levels of the Government Educational System.

        Her teachers should be imbarresed.

      8. Amazona

        Count, there is a theory that Velma did attend a law school, and graddiated last in her class from Bertha’s School of Hair Design and Law.

      9. Amazona

        Dinner at the Cup ‘n’ Sup, a buck ninety eight for all you can stand.

        I love Waits, too,but also found him helpful. My husband and I used to entertain a lot and when I got tired all I had to do was slip a Tom Waits CD in the changer and I could clear the room in ten minutes.

        There is nothing like a late-night drive through the deserted West, after listening to Art Bell, and then putting on Burma Shave…….

  6. irisspirit

    “Should the taxpayers support Darwinism exclusively being taught in schools, while at the same time denying equal opportunity and access for those who espouse Intelligent Design theory?””

    Yes, tax payers should support science exclusively to the exclusion of Intelligent Design. If a parent wants their child(ren) to be taught Intelligent Design, they need to provide that education themselves, through their church or put them in a religious based private school. Religious beliefs should not be taught in public schools. Once you go down that road it would become a question of WHAT religious beliefs should be taught to the children in a public school. Do Hindu’s get to teach their religious beliefs? What about Native Americans? Jewish teachings? What about Muslim beliefs. Public schools need to teach basic academic classes – math, science, history, geography – and let families and churches teach their children their own theology. There are many religious based teaching institution that would be available to teach both philosophies, Intelligent Design and Darwinism. If it is that important to a parent that their child be taught Intelligent Design they will find a way to do that.

    1. Amazona

      Velma, if Intelligent Design is religious in nature, please tell us WHICH religion it represents.

      Perhaps you can tell us what Hindus, Native Americans, Jews,etc. believe about the origins of the universe. I think you would find that they all believe in a creation, not an accidental collision of random lifeless particles which then somehow totally change into life forms which then somehow evolve from something less complex than a single cell into water, air, trees, rocks, whales, hummingbirds, and human beings.

      1. dbschmidt

        Ama,

        Not so sure my great^13 grandfather (‘great’ to the 13th power) — the sea slug might have had a different opinion. Nevertheless, he was squished on the trail. ;-)

    2. Cluster

      Velma,

      Darwinism does not, and can not, fully explain the origin of the universe, so wouldn’t it be educational malpractice to omit Intelligent Design?

      1. Cluster

        So just leave the kids with unanswered questions and no other possibilities?

        Seems like an odd way to educate children don’t ya think?

      2. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)

        Worse than that Cluster, leave the learners with half information and not tell them Darwinism is a Theory .

        They’d have questions if they knew they didn’t have all the information; as it is they don’t know what they don’t know; or even that they don’t know it.

      3. Amazona

        As an ardent, albeit clueless, Lefty, Velma is in favor of limiting what is taught in our schools to only the most rigid Leftist interpretation of anything. The very concept of exposing young minds to different ideas, and encouraging critical and analytical thought, is abhorrent to her, as it is to all good little Lefties.

        These people want only their version of anything offered to the public, and especially to young minds. They are much more about indoctrination than about education.

      4. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)

        Amazona,
        I encourage everyone to call the indoctrination process what it is; I no longer refer to this as “Public School System” but call it by its real name, The Government Education System.

        We’ve talked before about controlling the language, Libiots have given the indoctrination programs the innocent sounding “Public” name to make it sound like its all of us and not the bureaucrats deciding what the little skulls-full-of-mush learn.

  7. mitchethekid

    Why do you think you can break the rules and post hateful and disgusting personal attacks when you are told this will mean your removal from the blog and then just come back later? It doesn’t work that way. //Moderator

  8. dbschmidt

    The Liberals Have Really Stepped in it This Time…

    The Liberals and Progressives “step in it” over and over again but are covered by the MSM and court systems. “Chose Life” is a choice which includes abortion among other options. Nevertheless, promoting one option above others cannot be allowed in the Liberal dominated media and their small minds. They need to own all sides of any PC argument.

    If you actually look at their idea of “fairness” it would include abridging the first amendment with the “Fairness Act” only for talk radio and others that I would have to venture offend their views. The second amendment with the latest round of gun issues that have failed quite miserably every time enacted including Clinton’s Ban on Assault rifles. Might help if they actually knew anything about weapons in general. Do I need to continue?

    As Ama, among others, have pointed out the “War on Women”, etc. BTW, how is that “War on Poverty” or the “War on Drugs” going? So, nowadays, anyone can smoke themselves stupid and drive. Where are the breathalyzers (interlock devices) for dope or prescription drugs at? Right after they get their “Free Stuff.”

    One can read the morning reports from any of a dozen or more non-BS sites and see that this is a “war” on sensibility. Their motto should be “Whatever I want, for whatever flimsy excuse. Now. No questions.”

    They act and argue like petulant children and employ force as they see fit. Look at Michigan. Soon to be a right to work state which takes nothing away from unions except automatic payroll deductions. Now, anyone who has followed what normally happens knows that union membership and dues will drop radically—but that again is a choice soon to be given that does not detract from unions. If all of your folks are so comfortable with being union you should not lose a penny and actually gain membership. Don’t think so myself.

    The Government Indoctrination Centers (aka. Public school system) needs to be completely returned to the States if not entirely privatized. Alas, one has to only look to Michigan and Detroit to determine if Liberal policies are functional or failing and if you count 8% of children being able to read a success then you are the one with a problem.

Comments are closed.