So it begins.

[Msterbeau]

http://app.e2ma.net/app/view:CampaignPubli...cca396e6ca2526c

:doh

[phee]

To be expected... *sigh*

[Onyx]

It doesn't surprise me that Tennessee is where this is happening. My mom offered to leave me some land in her will, but I told her the only way I'll return to Tennessee is in a casket. (seriously - I never want to live there again).

[The_Dark]

Exactly what would the Pro-choice plate have said? Nothing says.. the article seems to gloss that over.

[Msterbeau]

Exactly what would the Pro-choice plate have said? Nothing says.. the article seems to gloss that over.

Maybe that's part of the point... It doesn't matter what words are used... we (The supreme court and the Tennessee legislature) don't like what it stands for so we won't allow it. I find it particularly galling that the lower circuit court sided with the pro-life organization and they're characterized as conservative. The arguement seems to rest around the issue of whether the specialty plates can be considered a form of government speech... which I think in this case it is not. Clearly if someone spends the money to have a specialty plate, it's their point of view. The government is involved only because it bears responsibility for the plates manufacture. (And because they reap some benefit from the sales)

[bean]

:blink :doh :erm *sigh* *cringe*

[The_Dark]

The plates are issued by the state, are used only for state business... I can see how they could be construde as a form of State Speech. At least as an endorsement of a certian way of thinking. So, what they wanted it to say does matter.

[The_Dark]

Nevermind. I've done some reading. No Pro-choice plate has ever been suggested. A Pro-Life orginization submitted the forms to have a Pro-Life plate. They met all the requirments to get one. Tenn. approved it. Then the ACLU and a Pro-Choice group sued to keep it from ever happening.

[Nevaeh]

sometimes i really miss TN...

but then i read things like this and remember why i hated it there.

(its still a beautiful state though damnit)

[The_Dark]

I fail to see whats so wrong. I would see a problem if a Pro-Choice group had been told that they could not have a plate. Thats not the case. A Pro-Choice group was told they could have a plate and the Pro-Choice group isn;t allowed to stop them.

[Msterbeau]

They don't say a lot about the Pro-Choice group... but this part of the article implies that there was a request made...and denied:

".... the Tennessee legislature refused to authorize a request for a pro-choice license plate, despite authorizing the “Choose Life” plate in the same proposed legislation."

[The_Dark]

I noticed that. Then I looked the case up on other websites and noone else makes mention of it. It might be that they did not meet the requirments... Like having 1000 signitures of people pledging to buy one.

[Msterbeau]

By the way... I screwed up on this. This is a 6th circuit court case, not Supreme court. I read "two Bush nominees" and my brain immediately thought Supreme Court. It's still a biased decision. IMO.

[Msterbeau]

I noticed that. Then I looked the case up on other websites and noone else makes mention of it. It might be that they did not meet the requirments... Like having 1000 signitures of people pledging to buy one.

I thought they just had to have 1000 "orders"? I would asume the sponsoring organization would pony up for that...

[The_Dark]

Doing more reading... Nope.. They need at least 1000 people that are willing to pay for the plates... and are willing to sign something that pretty much means they have too when the plates come out. The Pro-Choice people couldn't get that so the state would not pass the legislation to create the plate.

Marc,

How is it biased? The decision in no way impedes anyone's free speech. And Free speech is what the case was about. More to the point, The constitution does not guarantee a dissenting opinion on someone else’s free speech. The case, if the Pro-Choice people would have won, would have either stopped the State from making the Pro-Life plate or forced the state to make a Pro-Choice plate that noone wanted.

[Msterbeau]

Doing more reading... Nope.. They need at least 1000 people that are willing to pay for the plates... and are willing to sign something that pretty much means they have too when the plates come out. The Pro-Choice people couldn't get that so the state would not pass the legislation to create the plate.

Marc,

How is it biased? The decision in no way impedes anyone's free speech. And Free speech is what the case was about. More to the point, The constitution does not guarantee a dissenting opinion on someone else’s free speech. The case, if the Pro-Choice people would have won, would have either stopped the State from making the Pro-Life plate or forced the state to make a Pro-Choice plate that noone wanted.

Based on what I had read ... It seemed biased, for obvious reasons I should think. If they didn't approve the plate because of the lack of people willing to buy it, that's another matter entirely. Nothing in the court opinion gets into that though... Kinda crazy.

[The_Dark]

Even when not looking at the other plate.. How exactly is it biased?

A Pro-Adoption group went through legal means and found a way to express thier beleif in a public way. A Pro-Abortion group tried to counter this message in the same way. They were unable to meet the requirments and the state legislature wasn't inclined to help them. Then said Pro-Abortion group sued them to stop them from using thier right to free speech.

The lower court that found in favor of the Pro-Abortion group made that decision based on politics and fairness rather than on Law and the Constitution. The higher court found in favor of the Pro-Adoption group based on Law and the Constitution.

There is nothing in the constitution that gives equal time. There is no law that says a "state" can't have a political view on a topic nor does anything in the Constitution say that.

To me.. this is how things should be when it comes to the courts. They should only base thier decisions on the Constitution, Current Law and Precedence. In that order. Thats the way the system was designed to work.

[Msterbeau]

I said based on what *I* read. I didn't read all the stuff you saw. What *I* read said that the Pro-Choice plate was rejected and the Pro-Life plate accepted. That would be biased. I then said it was a different matter based on your info - meaning that I acknowledge that they didn't meet the requirements to have a plate approved, and that that's not biased.

[The_Dark]

But that only shows that the State Legislature was biased. Which, is legal and constitutional. You, at least originally, said that the court was... which is not the case.

[The_Dark]

But that only shows that the State Legislature was biased. Which, is legal and constitutional. You, at least originally, said that the court was... which is not the case.

[Msterbeau]

You really feel strongly about that don't you? :laughing

[The_Dark]

I feel very strongly about the Constitution and the Laws that support it. The Courts have a well defined roll in our system and I don't like anyone, of any political bent, trying to change thier role.

[Msterbeau]

I feel very strongly about the Constitution and the Laws that support it. The Courts have a well defined roll in our system and I don't like anyone, of any political bent, trying to change thier role.

I was joking about the double post, sir.

[torn asunder]

I said based on what *I* read.  I didn't read all the stuff you saw.  What *I* read said that the Pro-Choice plate was rejected and the Pro-Life plate accepted.  That would be biased.  I then said it was a different matter based on your info - meaning that I acknowledge that they didn't meet the requirements to have a plate approved, and that that's not biased.

yes, this was what i had taken from the little snippet that was posted. i didn't do any extra research either, and my first impression was the same as Msterbeau's. upon learning what thedark found out, i now agree with him. i don't think Msterbeau is arguing thedarks' conclusion, more like trying to explain his original conclusion.

[Marblez]

yes, this was what i had taken from the little snippet that was posted. i didn't do any extra research either, and my first impression was the same as Msterbeau's. upon learning what thedark found out, i now agree with him. i don't think Msterbeau is arguing thedarks' conclusion, more like trying to explain his original conclusion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thus, the problem with partisan journalism. Leave out a little information here and a little there and you have a whole new inflamatory story.