Supreme Court's 9-0 flag-flying decision startles, dismays wokesters in Vermont public schools
National outrage over George Floyd's death was particularly virulent in super-progressive (
the woke crowd took a hit. Hope may yet be coming.
A 9-0 USSC decision
- Thread starter eagle7-31
- Start date
the woke crowd took a hit. Hope may yet be coming.
- Thread starter
- #2
National outrage over George Floyd's death was particularly virulent in super-progressive ("woke") Vermont, where schools widely displayed the BLM flag beside the American flag. Unconcerned that this was a blatantly illegal government endorsement of an overtly partisan organization, proponents donned the "hear no evil from constitutionalists" earmuffs and prided themselves on agitating their neighbors by violating the Constitution.Supreme Court's 9-0 flag-flying decision startles, dismays wokesters in Vermont public schools
National outrage over George Floyd's death was particularly virulent in super-progressive (www.americanthinker.com
the woke crowd took a hit. Hope may yet be coming.
Many Vermonters have complained publicly that this is obvious abuse by government, but school officials have stonewalled, gaslighted, and suppressed all efforts to assert this axiomatic constitutional truth. The state's capital city of Montpelier shamelessly painted BLM on the road in front of the Vermont State House and condemned as racist an effort to display "Liberty and Justice For All" beside it. This is a cohesive, deliberate drive to eliminate basic constitutional guarantees to be replaced with an anti-constitutional ideology: the BLM flag is elevated as a superior symbol.
The United States Supreme Court's recent 9-0 Shurtleff decision, which said the government of Boston discriminated against a petitioner by refusing to fly the "Christian flag," has caught the attention of these miscreants where parents and taxpayers were ignored. A state leader in this patently illegal flag display has been the Randolph Union High School (RUHS). The school mascot was reinterpreted as racist — the ghost rider on a horse looked too much like a KKK member — after the woke school principal draped an actual robe over it to project his racist interpretation onto the community. Now Vermont is pushing a law for the state to oversee all mascots to supposedly "provide positive and inclusive learning environments for all students."
RUHS children have been systematically conditioned with CRT and BLM ideology, a bold and obscene indoctrination into liberal-only politics. Speech that detracts from the Democrat ownership of RUHS is verboten. Study materials portray police and conservatives as racists and reference "right-wing nuts." The left-wing nuts are praised.
Students at RUHS can wear gay pride T-shirts but not shirts that say, "There are only two genders" (that's a political attack on sensitive trans people) or "Let's Go Brandon" (too profane). At a recent school board meeting, a clueless equity director was incensed that one student dared to wear a shirt that said "I love Chick-fil-A" in protest against the school's cancelation of a baseball team fundraiser for using that company's chicken. The school decided it was an attack on gays and imputed a nonexistent hate motive, aiming:
TroglocratsRdumb
Diamond Member
- Aug 11, 2017
- 42,133
- 59,468
- 3,615
BLM is a violent racist hate group.
The people, schools and corporations who support BLM are either dumb, or they are also racist.
Micah Xavier Johnson was a racist BLM advocate who murdered 5 white Dallas policemen.
Darrell Brooks is a racist BLM advocate, and he ran over about 60 people in a Christmas parade.
The people, schools and corporations who support BLM are either dumb, or they are also racist.
Micah Xavier Johnson was a racist BLM advocate who murdered 5 white Dallas policemen.
Darrell Brooks is a racist BLM advocate, and he ran over about 60 people in a Christmas parade.
1srelluc
Diamond Member
Fuck all that running around Robin Hood's Barn three times trying to make other points.....Here's the decision:
[May 2, 2022]
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.
When the government encourages diverse expression—say, by creating a forum for debate—the First Amendment prevents it from discriminating against speakers based on their viewpoint. See Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 828–830 (1995). But when the government speaks for itself, the First Amendment does not demand airtime for all views. After all, the government must be able to “promote a program” or “espouse a policy” in order to function. Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U. S. 200, 208 (2015). The line between a forum for private expression and the government’s own speech is important, but not always clear.
This case concerns a flagpole outside Boston City Hall. For years, Boston has allowed private groups to request use of the flagpole to raise flags of their choosing. As part of this program, Boston approved hundreds of requests to raise dozens of different flags. The city did not deny a single request to raise a flag until, in 2017, Harold Shurtleff, the director of a group called Camp Constitution, asked to fly a Christian flag. Boston refused. At that time, Boston admits, it had no written policy limiting use of the flagpole based on the content of a flag. The parties dispute whether, on these facts, Boston reserved the pole to fly flags that communicate governmental messages, or instead opened the flagpole for citizens to express their own views. If the former, Boston is free to choose the flags it flies without the constraints of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. If the latter, the Free Speech Clause prevents Boston from refusing a flag based on its viewpoint.
We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech. That means, in turn, that Boston’s refusal to let Shurtleff and Camp Constitution raise their flag based on its religious viewpoint “abridg[ed]” their “freedom of speech.” U. S. Const., Amdt. I.
[May 2, 2022]
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.
When the government encourages diverse expression—say, by creating a forum for debate—the First Amendment prevents it from discriminating against speakers based on their viewpoint. See Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 828–830 (1995). But when the government speaks for itself, the First Amendment does not demand airtime for all views. After all, the government must be able to “promote a program” or “espouse a policy” in order to function. Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U. S. 200, 208 (2015). The line between a forum for private expression and the government’s own speech is important, but not always clear.
This case concerns a flagpole outside Boston City Hall. For years, Boston has allowed private groups to request use of the flagpole to raise flags of their choosing. As part of this program, Boston approved hundreds of requests to raise dozens of different flags. The city did not deny a single request to raise a flag until, in 2017, Harold Shurtleff, the director of a group called Camp Constitution, asked to fly a Christian flag. Boston refused. At that time, Boston admits, it had no written policy limiting use of the flagpole based on the content of a flag. The parties dispute whether, on these facts, Boston reserved the pole to fly flags that communicate governmental messages, or instead opened the flagpole for citizens to express their own views. If the former, Boston is free to choose the flags it flies without the constraints of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. If the latter, the Free Speech Clause prevents Boston from refusing a flag based on its viewpoint.
We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech. That means, in turn, that Boston’s refusal to let Shurtleff and Camp Constitution raise their flag based on its religious viewpoint “abridg[ed]” their “freedom of speech.” U. S. Const., Amdt. I.
I
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Supreme Court's 9-0 flag-flying decision startles, dismays wokesters in Vermont public schools
National outrage over George Floyd's death was particularly virulent in super-progressive (
the woke crowd took a hit. Hope may yet be coming.
The fascist left is being battered, truth be told.
democrats decided that grooming 4 year old children was the hill they wanted to die on - now they get to indeed die as a party. In a "be careful what you wish for" situation, the fascists seized power in 2020, but really just got enough rope to hang themselves. Using the Gestapo against parents, school board that openly lie to promote the democrat agenda indoctrinating little children as the democrats "Hitler Youth" is boomeranging on the fascists.
The fascists again overstepped, and this time the court smacked them down.
RoshawnMarkwees
Assimilationist
Which is exactly why the fascist democrats want to pack the court.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,563
- 52,840
- 2,290
Supreme Court's 9-0 flag-flying decision startles, dismays wokesters in Vermont public schools
National outrage over George Floyd's death was particularly virulent in super-progressive (
the woke crowd took a hit. Hope may yet be coming.
If the Supreme Court decision on Roe stands.....my Ben Shapiro, Leftist Tears Tumbler will be overflowing with their tears..........I enjoy my leftist tears with a little ice....
RoshawnMarkwees
Assimilationist
Meanwhile, democrats will be throwing ice-filled tumblers at federal buildings.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
You better look again, Leech
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,563
- 52,840
- 2,290
And at police.....and burning, looting and killing in black neighborhoods again...
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
The GOP, Trump, and Musk enjoy the deaths of children.
- Started by Old Rocks
- Replies: 1
-
CNN's Harry Enten Flabbergasted by Brutal New Numbers for Dems on Economy- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 4
-
