Skip to comments.Judge finds NC ‘Choose Life’ plates unconstitutional
Posted on 12/10/2012 8:40:42 AM PST by Clint N. SuhksEdited on 12/10/2012 8:46:47 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
RALEIGH, N.C. – A federal judge has ruled it is unconstitutional for North Carolina to issue pro-life license plates unless the state offers similar plates supporting abortion rights.
U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox ruled on Friday that North Carolina cannot produce or distribute the “Choose Life” plate.
(Excerpt) Read more at myfox8.com ...
Fine, let ‘em print up plates saying “Choose Death” for the abortionists, problem solved!
Create a plate that says "Choose Death".
Simple solution, create a license with the words “choose death” for those that support abortion.
Viewpoint discrimination? WTF? I have heard it all now!
Personally, I don’t like the message license plates at all. A plate is supposed to identify the registration info of a vehicle. That’s it.
"Choose Death" is a fine slogan. Truth in advertising, as well.
I agree, they smack of “Idiocracy.”
So get a “Choose Life” bumper sticker. The ACLU is evil. Funny how they are all about free speech except when it comes to what they don’t agree with.
Any takers brave enough to stand by their liberal dogma and drive around with that tag when they go about their enlightened lives?
By default, choosing life is a choice, therefore the plates already represent a Pro Choice viewpoint.
To oppose the Choose Life viewpoint, it would be necessary to print the Choose Death license plates. As others have already pointed out.
Yeah clearly legislating from the bench. My old Illinois “Land Of Lincoln” plate was viewpoint discrimination and should now be Land Of 0bama....
So if that is the case, should’nt there be “Brady Bill” Plates in opposition to NRA plates. Or Code Pink in opposition to “Support our Troops.” I would say the sate should but out a pro-choice plate so those in favor of baby killing can be identified.
Wonder how Judge Fox would react if a prospective juror told him he could not in good conscience serve in a Federal court. It was the Federal courts after all that legalized abortion on demand and made possible the carnage of forty million intentionally killed human lives. The thought of the Federal court’s atrocity would overwhelm the potential jurors ability to serve conscientiously. Also wonder what the good Judge Fox would sat to a future inductee who would refuse as a matter of conscience to take an oath to “uphold and defend” a constitution that has been interpreted to allow this slaughter and has not been amended to guarantee life. Just wondering.
“Choose Death” is not the opposite of “Choose Life”.
Instead “Death Without Choice” is the opposite of “Choose Life”
(Might not fit on a license plate though.)
(...and when was it an obligation of law for the state to create and fund both sides of every binary policy choice? and who says that every opinion or viewpoint comes with merely two, binary, options?)
I've never really understood the state sponsored advocacy plates. I could buy a advocacy license plate frame for less than the single year extra cost for the plate (assuming other states are like Ohio) and if I felt like it send that difference to someone actually doing something rather than the state (which nabs $10 of the annual fee for itself before passing the remainder on).
For example, the Ohio Choose Life plate costs $30 per year more than a regular plate. According to the site, "$20.00 of the total plate cost will go towards funding eligible private, nonprofit organizations that provide services committed to counseling pregnant women about the option of adoption."
Nominated by Jesse Helms and confirmed by Ronald Reagan. And had a military career earlier.
I guess they’re ALL nuts these days.
There’s no such thing as “viewpoint discrimination”. This is nonsense. IF the state had a plate that said “Don’t Steal” would they have to also have one respecting somebody’s opinion that “stealilng is a right”? This is crazy to think that a state has a duty to accomodate every single possible “viewpoint”, and impossible effectuate if carried to its logical extreme.
I don’t understand the basis for his ruling. If you don’t have an opposing viewpoint then your viewpoint is deemed unconstitutional?