Skip to comments.Minnesota Voters Alliance vs. Joe Mansky (Justice Alito NAILS the Leftist Defender)
Posted on 03/07/2018 3:36:15 PM PST by rlmorel
(Disclaimer: Please excuse and correct any errors in terminology-I don't know legal processes well)
There was a case argued on 2/28/2018 in front of the Supreme Court (Minnesota Voters Alliance vs. Joe Mansky) regarding the expression of political speech in polling areas. In the exchange below, Mr. Mansky is defending the Minnesota state statute prohibiting the wearing of political apparel at polling locations. Justice Alito is drilling down on just what "apparel" would be allowed or disallowed at a polling place:
JUSTICE ALITO: How about a shirt with a rainbow flag? Would that be permitted?
MR. ROGAN: A shirt with a rainbow flag? No, it would -- yes, it would be -- it would be permitted unless there was -- unless there was an issue on the ballot that -- that related somehow to -- to gay rights.
JUSTICE ALITO: How about a shirt that says "Parkland Strong"?
MR. ROGAN: No, that would -- that would be -- that would be allowed. I think - I think, Your Honor -
JUSTICE ALITO: Even though gun control would very likely be an issue?
MR. ROGAN: To the extent -
JUSTICE ALITO: I bet some candidate would raise an issue about gun control.
MR. ROGAN: Your Honor, the -- the - the line that we're drawing is one that is - is related to electoral choices in a -
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, what's the answer to this question? You're a polling official. You're the reasonable person. Would that be allowed or would it not be allowed?
MR. ROGAN: The -- the Parkland?
JUSTICE ALITO: Yeah.
MR. ROGAN: I -- I think -- I think today that I -- that would be -- if -- if that was in Minnesota, and it was "Parkland Strong," I -- I would say that that would be allowed in, that there's not -
JUSTICE ALITO: Okay. How about an NRA shirt?
MR. ROGAN: An NRA shirt? Today, in Minnesota, no, it would not, Your Honor. I think that that's a clear indication -- and I think what you're getting at, Your Honor -
JUSTICE ALITO: How about a shirt with the text of the Second Amendment?
MR. ROGAN: Your Honor, I -- I -- I think that that could be viewed as political, that that -- that would be -- that would be -
JUSTICE ALITO: How about the First Amendment? (Laughter.)
MR. ROGAN: No, Your Honor, I don't - I don't think the First Amendment. And, Your Honor, I -
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No -- no what, that it would be covered or wouldn't be
MR. ROGAN: It would be allowed.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: It would be?
MR. ROGAN: It would be. And -- and I think the -- I understand the -- the idea, and I've -- I've -- there are obviously a lot of examples that -- that have been bandied about here -
JUSTICE ALITO: Yeah, well, this is the problem. How about a Colin Kaepernick Jersey?
MR. ROGAN: No, Your Honor, I don't think that that would be under -- under our statute. And I think -
JUSTICE ALITO: How about "All Lives Matter"?
MR ROGAN: That could be, your honor, that could be - that could be political. And I -- I think obviously, Your Honor, there -- there are some hard calls and there are always going to be hard calls. And that -- that doesn't mean that the line that we've drawn is -- is unconstitutional or even unreasonable.
JUSTICE ALITO: How about an "I Miss Bill" shirt? (Laughter.)
MR. ROGAN: I'm sorry, Your Honor? I didn't -
JUSTICE ALITO: "I Miss Bill," or to make it bipartisan, a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt?
MR. ROGAN: Yes, Your Honor, I believe that that's political.
I suspect that what sent this to the Supreme Court was a conservative voter showing up at a polling place wearing a NRA hat and denied entry, while they waved someone with a "Black Lives Matter" hat right on through. (Just a guess on my part)
I am not familiar with these things, so it was hard for me to figure out when I started in who was arguing for what. The first attorney represented the Minnesota Voters Alliance (Mr. Breemer) and while I was trying to figure it out, realized Sotomayor, Kagan, Kennedy, and (when she wasn't nodding off) Ginsberg were ALL over this guy. They were interrupting what he said, ganging up one after the other, and I figured out pretty quick which side Mr. Breemer was arguing for!)
But I loved it when guy representing the State of Minnesota (Mr. Rogan) came up, Justice Alito got right to the heart of the matter and drilled right into it...specifically with his comment about a shirt with the text of the 2nd Amendment, immediately followed by his question about the same shirt with the text of the 1st Amendment!
If you listen to the audio of this exchange at Audio for the Minnesota Voters Alliance vs. Joe Mansky at about the 30 min. mark is just great! He makes the guy start to stutter...:)
Don’t any of these dolts see the absurdity of their position banning anything by such subjective measures? When their answers are “I think...”, “I don’t think”, “I don’t know”, “it depends on...”
Good God, please help us all.
The attorney should have just said, “I know when I see it” (quoting Justice Stewart regarding obscenity). The guy clearly lost the case, so he might as well go out with a laugh.
I certainly agree!
The corollary: If you are for it, I am against it.
>>The guy clearly lost the case
The sad thing is that he probably hasn’t lost it. 3-5 justices probably think his idiotic and bumbling “answers” are essentially correct.
Thank you for posting this. Justice Alito makes a very good point.
It is also a very good website. I like how we can listen to the actual audio exchange, how the transcript is highlighted with the text currently being spoken, and how the picture of the Supreme Court Justice speaking is highlighted.
I was impressed with it too! I had never seen it before today.
Heh, I didn’t really see it that way, but that is a funny take on it!
Well 3 and 4 are fine.
You know how the SC works, right? :)
I haven’t been able to find out exactly what kicked this off...but I will bet that was exactly it, and they pissed off some patriot who decided to sue.
I scanned an article about this recently. IIRC, he was wearing a pin that said "Please ID Me" and a shirt with a political message. All passive. He never opened his mouth to try to influence any votes.
Personally I can do a decent job (I think) of framing my point of view and responding when I have time to do so. I can write.
I am, however, pretty slow on my feet when it comes to actual discourse. I SO admired his retort about the First Amendment!
So quick, and like a rapier right to the EXACT point, all in five simple words: "How about the First Amendment? "
Just wow. I miss both Scalia and Rehnquist. But this guy seems like he could live up to their example.
I’m against it.
I was in Minnesota for the 2010 general election. The SoS stated that anyone wearing anything with “Please ID Me” would be arrested. I had no such apparel, but presented my Minnesota driver’s license without being asked. I got a major stink eye from the election judge. Then I found out that someone voted for me.
That's funny! Unless you're the Hayek from the Austrian School of economics, in which case, I'd vote for you also. :)
And were you allowed to challenge the fake vote?
Is there a link to a FR post about your adventure, so we can all read about it?
I just love the whole process.
Simply amazing all that has to be taken into consideration.
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.