This ruling makes sense to me. The Confederate Flag is, inter alia, a symbol of rebellion against Federal power. Even as a heritage symbol, which is how the Sons of Confederate Veterans want to use it, displaying it aligns one with the historical cause of rejecting the Federal government outright where it overstepped the community's understanding of its constitutional bounds. The Federal courts' extraordinary power over every aspect of American life follows directly from the defeat of that cause and the consequent Reconstruction's 14th Amendment.
So when the SoCV went forward with a lawsuit claiming the right to force the government to accept the symbol, of course the courts are bound to reject that. The liberal wing of the court was united here, joined by Justice Thomas. The article mentions that he is 'the court's only African-American' in a way that suggests this was a causal factor, but Thomas is surely correct as an originalist. The purpose of the Reconstruction amendments was to suppress just this particular political expression. For, as von Clausewitz reminds us, war is only politics by other means.
I have little problem with the ruling as well. But interestingly enough, this very ruling also completely destroys the whole "viewpoint neutral" requirement on a lot of stuff for these kinds of license plates. You cannot compel the state to put out a plate with a particular message, says the SCOTUS. But yet, that means that if a pro-choice group wishes to have a competing plate to a "Choose Life" plate, the State can point to this decision and tell them to bugger off. Because you can't compel them to do so. And there's nothing at all in the Constitution requiring a State government to be viewpoint neutral on a political opinion. Religious opinion? Sure. I can definitely see that argument flying (so no "Islam Sucks", or "Catholicism is the Bee's Knees" license plates), but political neutrality? Ha!
ReplyDeleteI don't see how you can plausibly ask any government to be 'viewpoint neutral' on political opinions. The military used to ask recruits if they were advocates of the violent overthrow of the US government -- i.e., were they Communists? If they were, then they wouldn't be accepted. And for pretty good reason!
ReplyDeleteI enlisted back in the day where they asked all the questions "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? Are you now, or have you ever been a member of a group calling for the violent overthrow of the US Government? Are you now, or have you ever been a member of a group advocating the use of force to deny rights to other citizens on the basis of creed, color, or ethnicity? Are you a homosexual?"
ReplyDeleteAnd in that time, the answer "yes" to any of those was a bar to enlistment. Different time.
No slogans on my license plate. If the State gets to decide which slogans are permissible (not "hate speech," for instance), I'll do my communicating in some other way, thanks, perhaps via bumper sticker. The State can promulgate its own favored slogans in some other way.
ReplyDeleteWhen I lived in Virginia, the state insisted on "Virginia is for Lovers" on my license plate. I would have preferred if they'd stuck to a simple alphanumeric designation. Not that I'm opposed to lovers, or loving, or love in general. However, I prefer to manage my own speech rather than being roped into someone else's.
ReplyDelete