Does this SCOTUS overturn Texas v. Johnson?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 25, 2022, 04:01:14 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자))
  Does this SCOTUS overturn Texas v. Johnson?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: ?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 11

Author Topic: Does this SCOTUS overturn Texas v. Johnson?  (Read 345 times)
ERM64man
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,277


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 14, 2022, 06:07:57 PM »

Does this 1A decision get overturned? I can only hope not.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,396
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -1.39


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2022, 10:41:50 PM »

no lol

There is, I suppose, a case involving flags and the messages they convey (Shurtleff v. City of Boston). The chance the Court uses it to overturn Texas v. Johnson is approximately zero. Not sure where you came up with this one.
Logged
ERM64man
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,277


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2022, 10:53:29 PM »

I believe Gorsuch and Roberts donít want to overturn it. I know Thomas and Alito want to overturn it. What do Kavanaugh and Barrett think?
Logged
The Inherent Beauty of the Stars in January
BRTD
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 98,695
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2022, 10:13:38 PM »

The only one currently on the Court I could see particularly caring about overturning it is Alito. Thomas might but he also might defer to his former BFF Scalia's original ruling on it, and Roberts seems like someone who might've dissented if he heard the original case but now considers the issue settled. ACB I'd say is possibly a tossup between either the category I put Roberts in or opposed, Kavanaugh while a pretty loathsome individual seems to be pretty solid on free speech issues, Gorsuch is way too much of a textual literalist, and none of the liberals are going to be onboard since it seems Stevens' original dissent was a fluke probably influenced by his Greatest Generation patriotism (he was not only the last WW2 veteran but I believe the last veteran at all to serve on the court.)
Logged
ERM64man
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,277


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2022, 02:10:50 PM »

The only one currently on the Court I could see particularly caring about overturning it is Alito. Thomas might but he also might defer to his former BFF Scalia's original ruling on it, and Roberts seems like someone who might've dissented if he heard the original case but now considers the issue settled. ACB I'd say is possibly a tossup between either the category I put Roberts in or opposed, Kavanaugh while a pretty loathsome individual seems to be pretty solid on free speech issues, Gorsuch is way too much of a textual literalist, and none of the liberals are going to be onboard since it seems Stevens' original dissent was a fluke probably influenced by his Greatest Generation patriotism (he was not only the last WW2 veteran but I believe the last veteran at all to serve on the court.)
Thomas was close to Scalia, but he broke from Scalia in many notable cases. Remember Hollingsworth v. Perry, where Scalia and Roberts cast the deciding votes in favor of gay rights? Under no circumstance would Thomas ever side with gay rights despite Scalia once doing so.
Logged
MarkD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,544
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2022, 07:19:28 PM »


I can only hope so.

First thing I want to know is: has there ever been any historical evidence that our Founding Fathers wanted the concept of any actions/conduct that a person engages in that has a political purpose underlying it is protected by the Freedom of Speech? Did Joseph Story ever say anything about that in The Commentaries on the United States Constitution?

The first thing I should say about my personal feelings about flag-burning is that I really don't give a damn about it. As long as you don't burn a flag under my butt it's no skin off my nose. The sight of a burning flag evokes absolutely no emotion from me whatsoever.

But I cannot understand why a law that prohibits flag-burning is deemed unconstitutional. Trying to treat the act of flag-burning as if it's encompassed within the concept of Freedom of Speech strikes me as if you want to treat the First Amendment as if it's an across-the-board form of libertarianism: anything you would be willing to give people the freedom to do is protected by the First Amendment (and/or the Ninth Amendment, the penumbras that emanate from the Bill of Rights, etc.)

Another thing that surprised me about the issue of flag-burning is to compare Texas v. Johnson to R.A.V. v. St. Paul, handed down by The Supremes in 1992. The former case was only 5-4, but the latter case was unanimous (in terms of conclusion). The four Justices who dissented from the flag-burning decision in 1989 (Rehnquist, O'Connor, White, and Stevens) were joining in accepting the concept that burning a cross (make-shift crucifix) is a constitutionally-protected right, protected by the Freedom of Speech. No to flag-burning, but yes to cross-burning, per those four. That's obviously an emotional reaction to the sight/concept of a burning flag but no emotional reaction to the sight/concept of a burning cross. Yeesh!

Why is burning anything the equivalent of the Freedom of Speech? In 1968, by 7 to 1, the Court deemed that the act of burning a draft card is not protected by the First Amendment. But just one year later, by 5 to 4, the Court came about one foot away from decreeing that burning a flag is protected by the First Amendment .... Street v. New York.

Do actions such as burning a draft card, burning a flag, burning a cross, burning an effigy have symbolic meaning to them? Is there a political point to why people do them? Yes. But by the same token, if the next time I travel to Washington D.C. and I happen to enter the Senate Russell Office building, if I happen to cross paths with Sen. Mitch McConnell, I might want to stop and talk with him briefly, and I might want to unzip the fly on my trousers and pee on his shoes as I'm talking to him, that would be symbolic too and it would have a political point that I would be trying to make. But does that mean I have a First Amendment right to pee on the Senator's shoes? Do I have a constitutional right to burn his necktie?

The worst thing of all is when I hear people say that they disagree with Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. FEC, because (so they say) "Money is not the same thing as speech." If people like that ever come at me with the question, "Where in the Constitution does it say that money is the same thing as speech?" I reply to them, "It says so in the exact same spot that it says that burning a flag and burning a cross is the same thing as giving a speech." To me, it's the worst display of legal unintelligence when someone says, "Money is not the same thing as speech."
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.045 seconds with 15 queries.