[Viennacon]

You hear that America. The next insane ruling from our new kritarchy is that your flag is not constitutionally protected. What next? Your constitution is not constitutionally protected?

[plainshame]

Can the 9th circuit and Ca just vanish?They should create their own liberal country and leave Americans alone.

[P-Marlowe]

Americans are just going to have to resort to violence in response to Cinco de Mayo celebrations.

[Cyman]

Now does everyone understand how miraculous the concealed weapon case from San Diego really is?

[icwhatudo]

So if avoiding violence is reason to allow certain constitutional rights to be violated, why do they let murderers off for not being read their rights?

[MacMattico]

What if a kid goes out and gets an American flag tattooed on his face? Does he have to wear a burka that day?

[Slings and Arrows]

The Ninth Circus just legitimized the Heckler’s Veto. Hope that this one goes to the Supremes.

[Talisker]

"Our role is not to second-guess the decision to have a Cinco de Mayo celebration or the precautions put in place to avoid violence," Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for the panel.

LOL, it's hard to see why not, Judge. The case had to do with the limitation of civil rights. Shouldn't there be a threshold that has to be passed where every alternative is exhausted before civil rights can be impinged? And without that threshold, isn't the endangerment of civil rights magnified by allowing literally any claimed or perceived threat be used to quash them? And aren't civil rights necessarily the very absolute last things that should be limited under and circumstances, and as minimially as possible even when required, due to their fundamental protections of freedom itself?

[fieldmarshaldj]

A “ruling” screaming out to be slapped down hard.

[plainshame]

The 9th circuit is ruled by emotions and the PC crowd not law.I call it the flake court full of liberals that have no real purpose but to make bad decisions 24/7 only to be overruled.

[Ray76]

This is like the appeasement of Islamists. YOU must watch your step because “there will be trouble” - even though it’s completely unreasonable for there to be trouble. Never surrender to these monkeys. This judge has his head so far up his ass he’s looking out his mouth.

[Sacajaweau]

Insane

[Amendment10]

I don't know the specifics of the referenced case. But note that, regardless that several states incorprated language from the Bill of Rights into their own constitutions, the Founding Nanny States had decided that the states were not obligated to respect the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the BoR drafted to limit the federal government's powers. This is evidenced by the following excerpts from Thomas Jefferson's writings. Note that the first excerpt was written before the Constitution was drafted.

"Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth or permitted to the subject in the ordinary way cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses; and whatsoever is prejudicial to the Commonwealth in their ordinary uses and, therefore, prohibited by the laws, ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. For instance, it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children. It is ordinarily lawful (or temporarily lawful) to kill calves or lambs; they may, therefore, be religiously sacrificed. But if the good of the State required a temporary suspension of killing lambs, as during a siege, sacrifices of them may then be rightfully suspended also. This is the true extent of toleration (emphasis added)." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:547

“3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed (emphasis added); …” —Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

But also consider that regardless the states obligated themselves to respect constitutional privileges and immunites when they ratified the 14th Amendment, John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A had officially clarified that 14A took away no states righs.

“The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of first column)

“No right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired…” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See top half of 1st column)

“Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)

So the states still have the power to reasonably limit our constitutionally enumerated rights regardless of 14A. In fact, Justice Reed had noted that is the job of judges to balance 10A-protected state powers with 14A-protected personal rights.

"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942.

I know that if I was a school official looking at the possibility of injured or dead students as a result of a possible student clash, I would have seriously considered the "preemptive strike" of having students turning their t-shirts inside out. That's better than having to console parents by telling them that their child died at least while they were exercising their freedom of speech.

[txrefugee]

Can’t we just consider CA part of Mexico and be done with it? It would be great to have their electoral votes disappear in U.S. elections. If a conservative president is ever elected, that should be his first executive order. After all, we don’t need Congress to pass laws any more.

[Scoutmaster]

There are reasons why the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decisions are overruled more often than the decisions of any other Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

[managusta]

You can bet that Mexican t-shirts will be banned on July 4th.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Mexifornia is no longer a US state but an appendage of Mexico. What else can you expect?

[NormsRevenge]

The 9th Circus.. the Boko Harum of the bench