:
* this is the polically correct version for the judge's benefit.
What part of the primary "unalienable" right does he not understand?
Posted on 01/01/2003 5:30:48 AM PST by Captain Shady
this article
Posted on December 31, 2002 Federal judge rules 'Choose Life' license plates unconstitutional
By JEFFREY COLLINS
Associated Press Writer
A federal court judge has ruled South Carolina's anti-abortion license plates are unconstitutional.
The plates, which include the slogan "Choose Life," violate the First Amendment because it give anti-abortion advocates a forum to express their beliefs, while abortion rights supports have no license plate of their own, Senior U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman ruled last week.
A spokesman for the attorney general's office said the state plans to appeal the decision to 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"We will let the process take its course," spokesman Robb McBurney said. "We're hopeful we're going to win in the end."
Bertelsman's decision is at odds with a ruling made by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, saying that Louisiana abortion rights advocates had no standing to sue that state over its anti-abortion plate.
The whole issue could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, especially if Bertelsman's ruling is upheld, said Peter Murphy, a Columbia attorney representing Planned Parenthood and another plaintiff.
"It's wrong for the government to provide a forum for one group and discriminate by viewpoint," Murphy said Tuesday. "The only way to address this may be to eliminate the forum."
Specialty plates are approved in two ways. Either a nonprofit group can apply to have a plate whose sale will be restricted to its members, or the Legislature can approve a special plate on its own.
The law allowing the "Choose Life" plate was signed by Gov. Jim Hodges in 2001 and included in a bill that allowed NASCAR and other specialty plates. Those plates were not affected by Thursday's ruling.
Planned Parenthood sued days after the law took effect, and a federal judge issued an injunction against issuing the plates two months later.
The ruling shouldn't prevent anti-abortion groups from having their own license plates, but it would require going through the regular approval process for other nonprofit groups rather than going through lawmakers, Bertelsman said.
"Plaintiffs or others who agree with them may utilize that scheme as well," the judge wrote.
In briefs before the court, the state had argued "there is little dispute but that the voice of the State of South Carolina expresses a preference for childbirth over abortion" and that the "Choose Life" license plates are government speech.
But lawyers for Planned Parenthood said the plates cannot be government speech because private individuals choose to buy the special tags and have to pay an extra fee.
In his ruling, Bertelsman acknowledges this decision is more contentious than most.
"This is a free speech case," Bertelsman wrote on the sixth page of his 22-page ruling. "It is not about the merits of the ongoing national controversy between the pro-life and pro-choice movements."
Bertelsman said the arguments in the case match a 4th Circuit ruling on Virginia's decision to prevent the Sons of Confederate Veterans from including its logo on its specialty license plate.
Virginia lawyers said a license plate was a statement by the state, not private speech. But the panel of federal judges disagreed.
This ruling is a naked, bold power grab by an unelected bureaucrat and is decidedly chilling in its implications. What the Judge is saying here is that the State can never promote any policy position without giving the other side "equal time". There are opponents to virtually every political position the State may choose to promote, so....does this mean the State can't approve a "say no to drugs" license plate without "providing a forum" to those who believe drugs are OK, and want a "say yes to drugs" plate? How about a plate which says "Don't hate...Diversity is our strength” - do we have to give a forum to the Klan and other groups who want to support racism?
The Judge tried to hang his hat on a "free speech" basis in order to avoid the more absurd aspects of his ruling. He takes the position that since people must "pay” for the plates then this is private speech rather than state speech and therefore is a government sponsored private forum for one side against the other. This doesn't hold. Vanity plates are, in essence, a revenue raising vehicle for the state. A voluntary tax if you will. Therefore, the Judge is ruling that the State can't offer a voluntary tax to help support and promote a policy decision unless it offers the same promotion and support to those who oppose this policy decision. This is crazy and finds no support in the history of First Amendment "free speech" caselaw. In fact this is a much "fairer" vehicle than if the State just gave away "Choose Life" plates because then the "pro-choicers" whould be forced to fund with their tax dollars a viewpoint that they disagree with. If the State government decides to raise revenue and promote a policy position using the same vehicle, this does not violate free-speech. Again, when the local police dept. sells those "Say no to drugs" stickers for a quarter, will it now have to also offer "say yes to drugs" stickers?
What has happened here is that the State is sponsoring a political viewpoint with which the Judge disagrees, so the Judge is banning it merely because he has the power to do so. Had situation been the Klan suing in opposition to a "Stop Racism" plate do you think the result would have been the same? It used to be that Dictators wore helmets and waved swords...now it seems they wear robes and pound gavels.
"This judge is a jackass"
A recent instance was in Vermont where a woman applied for a vanity plate reading "Irish." It was turned down as it was determined that it could offend some people. I think the person was going to appeal the ruling but I've not heard anything since.
Hmmm.
That is the core of my concern. I'll admit I don't understand the finer points of the legal arguments, but I do understand when the First Amendment is being trifled with.
I'm pro-choice. I choose life!
:
* this is the polically correct version for the judge's benefit.
What part of the primary "unalienable" right does he not understand?
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.