4 ms·
The US Supreme court ruled the other way as recently as 1989: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson It
by bediger4000 1y ago
The US Supreme court ruled the other way as recently as 1989: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson
It was 5-4, but the majority included the venerable Justice Scalia.
How do we reconcile past SCOTUS decisions, and the pretty plain wording of the constitution's first amendment, with Mr Trump's decision? I mean, we as a country have been pretty happy with his decisions in other hotly contested matters. I supposed we can be happy with this one.
- UncleMeat 1y agoThe Trump administration is going with the argument that although flag burning is protected speech when it is done to incite illegal action it isn't protected and that protestors who are burning flags are doing it to incite illegal action. This is, of course, absolute bullshit. But there's been a trend for the past several decades of the courts practically limiting speech rights for disfavored groups without technically limiting their speech rights. Nieves v Bartlett is perhaps the clearest example, where arresting somebody to retaliate against their speech (even if everybody agrees that this was the proximate reason for the arrest) is fine as long as there is any other possible justification for the arrest.
- bediger4000 1y agoThank you for the example of SCOTUS "shaving" rights until they're non-existent. That's consistent with their approach to 4th Amendment issues.