Posted on 05/02/2022 3:22:20 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative
SCOTUS has,for the second time in several years,struck down Massachusetts politicians who chose to violate basic Constitutional rights. Both times they did so by a 9-0 vote.This time it was a 1st Amendment case (religious rights *and* free speech rights) and involved the City of Boston. It's the lead story today on local Boston news stations.
The earlier one was a 2nd Amendment case in which SCOTUS called the Massachusetts law that they struck down as "frivolous" (Caetano v Massachusetts).
Thanks for posting
Gas went from $3.99 Sunday to $4.39 Monday in Cheboygan Michigan.
When you lose all 3 of the squad votes and Thomas you really jumped the shark.
It seems like Massachusetts is often at the forefront of starting sh*t.
as expected, though the order was against the city, the court provides a blueprint to the city for how it can discriminate in the future...
Boston could easily have done more to make clear it wished to speak for itself by raising flags. Other cities’ flag- flying policies support our conclusion. The City of San Jose, California, for example, provides in writing that its “ ‘flagpoles are not intended to serve as a forum for free expression by the public,’ ” and lists approved flags that may be flown “ ‘as an expression of the City’s official sentiments.’ ” See Brief for Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. as Amici Curiae 18.
All told, while the historical practice of flag flying at government buildings favors Boston, the city’s lack of meaningful involvement in the selection of flags or the crafting of their messages leads us to classify the flag raisings as private, not government, speech— though nothing prevents Boston from changing its policies going forward.
So, even though plaintiffs won the case, I seriously doubt they will be able to enjoy the win by exercising their rights.
It was the only time the city refused to fly a flag, having approved 284 requests from various countries, causes, businesses, and organizations between 2005 and 2017, the court said. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Biden administration had filed briefs supporting Camp Constitution in the case. - https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/05/02/metro/supreme-court-rules-boston-violated-first-amendment-rights-by-refusing-fly-christian-flag-city-hall-plaza/?event=event12
I wrote this in response to a Globe comment asking “What about separation of church and state?
You simply cannot separate church from state so as to forbid the latter from any expression of religious faith, which is what moral laws flowed from, while government acknowledgment of dependence upon deity, and mostly of a Christian nature, and expressing gratitude to the same historically has been part of the fabric of America. And not doing so implicitly conveys atheism.
What about understanding the First Amendment the way the writers overall manifested they did, and courts until about 150 years after it was penned? Want to tell Congress, Washington, Lincoln, Adams (all 3) , Hancock, Baldwin, Madison, Boudinot, Henry, Story, Jay, Rush , Franklin, etc. that they did not understand the Constitution?
Even Jefferson, while he opposed the government issuing such proclamations as for days of prayer and thanksgiving, yet he attended religious services in the House or Representatives and supported the granting of permission to various denominations to worship in executive office buildings (where four-hour communion services were sometimes held), and for providing “friendly aids” to the churches. Including for printing Bibles. Much later, If Franklin Roosevelt would publicly pray for America.
Thus a flag with a Christian symbol on it, reflective of the nation’s general foundational generations, should not be banned - though scorned by the liberal elites today who instead would have all salute the flag of Sodom, which it flies, reflective of its beliefs. The Founders would not.
True
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.