Support NeoGAF

[Hobbestetrician]

canada looks tempting to me regardless of this decision (to the point that i'm actually starting to budget for a move somewhere between 2017 and 2020)

But then you might have to deal with the doofus Harper if he gets re-elected this fall.

(Regardless, I am more than happy I made the move to Canada, especially since it meant me getting the fuck out of Michigan)

 

[PhoenixDark]

But then you might have to deal with the doofus Harper if he gets re-elected this fall.

(Regardless, I am more than happy I made the move to Canada, especially since it meant me getting the fuck out of Michigan)

Hey now, don't talk ill of this great state.

 

[ivysaur12]

Hmm. I usually find TP to be clickbait trash, but they make an interesting point: Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Roberts have authored 0 decisions from February arguments. Alito and Scalia have authored two, and Thomas 1.

Fun!!

 

[Black Mamba]

Rand Paul: Blow up the tax code and start over



"When combined with my package of spending cuts" suggests the Tax Foundation told him his tax plan would reduce government revenue. I'd be interested in seeing a more detailed analysis.

The Tax Foundation isn't taken seriously by serious people.

Rand's tax plan is stupid as are all flat tax plans. Oh, and of course he keeps the mortgage deduction for wealthy people alive.


Seeing Thomas being the decided vote on a case with the liberals is always amazing.


Alito has had a lot of cases lately. He was the one that brought up contingency plans for King and if he's not authoring the opinion (which I don't think he is for sure now) then that's probably out. Roberts or Kennedy are doing it with ginsburg an outside chance (but she's authoring Obergefell, we all know this one).

 

[ivysaur12]

There's no way Ginsburg is doing Obergefell. This is Kennedy's legacy. Like, his ONLY legacy.

 

[Black Mamba]

There's no way Ginsburg is doing Obergefell. This is Kennedy's legacy. Like, his ONLY legacy.

yeah, you're probably right. Kennedy is writing that one.

 

[Plinko]

canada looks tempting to me regardless of this decision (to the point that i'm actually starting to budget for a move somewhere between 2017 and 2020)

If I could get a teaching job up there I'd move. I've always wanted to live in Canada.

 

[Fenderputty]

Oh, and of course he keeps the mortgage deduction for wealthy people alive.

Stay away from my mortgage deduction. I'm not wealthy.

 

[Plinko]

In more "Michigan republican legislators are insane" news:

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/06/rep_gary_glenn_schools_telling.html

LANSING, MI — School officials should be held financially or criminally liable if they tell a student it's OK to be gay and he or she contracts a deadly sexually transmitted disease, Michigan state Rep. Gary Glenn said in a documentary filmed before he took office.

Glenn, R-Midland, shared his views in a 30-minute film released this year titled "Light wins: How to overcome the Criminalization of Christianity," which features a series of interviews with political and faith leaders.

"If some young person hears at school that it's OK to be gay and then comes down with a fatal disease as a result, school officials should be held legally liable, individually and in their official capacities, financially and maybe even criminally," Glenn said in the film.

More at the link.

 

[Black Mamba]

Stay away from my mortgage deduction. I'm not wealthy.

I'm fine with it, but it should be capped

 

[Aaron Strife]

But then you might have to deal with the doofus Harper if he gets re-elected this fall.

(Regardless, I am more than happy I made the move to Canada, especially since it meant me getting the fuck out of Michigan)

I heard polling for the upcoming elections have been great for the NDP.

 

[HylianTom]

In more "Michigan republican legislators are insane" news:

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/06/rep_gary_glenn_schools_telling.html



More at the link.

Yep, Michigan's GOP has gone off of the deep end on this issue.

They're doing more than just that..

Republicans trying to stop gay marriage by banning all non-religious weddings

Todd Courser and Cindy Gamrat, who sit in the Michigan House of Representatives, have filed House Bill 4732 – which would make it illegal for anyone who is not a “minister of the Gospel, cleric, or religious practitioner” to perform weddings. ..
The bill states: “Marriages may only be solemnized by… a minister of the gospel, cleric or religious practitioner, anywhere in this state, if the minister of the gospel, cleric, or religious practitioner is ordained or authorised to solemnise marriages according to the usages of the denomination.”

A second bill, from the pair, House Bill 4733, would restrict the issuing of marriage licenses to clergy also – while a third bill, House Bill 4731, would ban marriages in secret.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/1...rriage-by-banning-all-non-religious-weddings/

The creativity is admirable. And entertaining.

 

[Hobbestetrician]

In more "Michigan republican legislators are insane" news:

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/06/rep_gary_glenn_schools_telling.html



More at the link.

Yep, Michigan's GOP has gone off of the deep end on this issue.

They're doing more than just that..

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/1...rriage-by-banning-all-non-religious-weddings/

The creativity is admirable. And entertaining.

Hey now, don't talk ill of this great state.

You were saying?

I heard polling for the upcoming elections have been great for the NDP.

Would be great if it happened. I live in a very heavy NDP area so we (well, my wife and others since I cannot vote) will do our part. The NDP shocked the country by gaining a majority in Alberta (Alberta!) but no idea if that will lead to anything on a national level.

 

[B-Dubs]

Yep, Michigan's GOP has gone off of the deep end on this issue.

They're doing more than just that..

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/1...rriage-by-banning-all-non-religious-weddings/

The creativity is admirable. And entertaining.

They'll never stop touching the hot gay stove will they?

 

[BertramCooper]

Have we seen any state legislature bills that would completely dissolve the institution of marriage as it currently exists in government?

Because if not, I bet we'll eventually see some of those introduced.

"If government wants to redefine marriage, we're going to take marriage from the government and give it back to the church!"

 

[Black Mamba]

Have we seen any state legislature bills that would completely dissolve the institution of marriage as it currently exists in government?

Because if not, I bet we'll eventually see some of those introduced.

"If government wants to redefine marriage, we're going to take marriage from the government and give it back to the church!"

That would be pretty messy given how much of the law would have to be changed regarding assets and visitation rights and all that other stuff.

What gets lost in the argument for same-sex marriage, which often revolves around love, is the amount of gov't sanctioned things that change when 2 people marry one another.

So I could see a few idiots proposing such things, but no legislature in this country would pass a law removing marriage from gov't.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

With all due respect to the liberal justices, I can't help but wonder if they would have come to the same conclusion had this been a lawsuit from Planned Parenthood against a conservative state government that had denied them a license plate.

I have no problem kicking pro-choice stuff off license plates same with anti-abortion ones. That's what bumper stickers are for

 

[ivysaur12]

Have we seen any state legislature bills that would completely dissolve the institution of marriage as it currently exists in government?

Because if not, I bet we'll eventually see some of those introduced.

"If government wants to redefine marriage, we're going to take marriage from the government and give it back to the church!"

Yes. Alabama. Passed one of their chambers.

 

[BertramCooper]

Yes. Alabama. Passed one of their chambers.

:lol

 

[Wilsongt]

It makes me a little uneasy that Obama talked about guns when he spoke of charleston... This is less about guns and more about race.

 

[Jackson50]

Rand Paul: Blow up the tax code and start over



"When combined with my package of spending cuts" suggests the Tax Foundation told him his tax plan would reduce government revenue. I'd be interested in seeing a more detailed analysis.

Oh, this is good. A conservative Republican tax scheme that benefits the wealthy and creates larger deficits? Color me shocked. It has one or two proposals worth considering. Otherwise, it's a dismal proposal. Assuming the TF's economic analysis is accurate, that's a humorous thought, the budget gap will still approximate $ 1 trillion over a decade. So how does he account for the deficit? Unspecified spending cuts. Ah, yes. I wonder who will bear the brunt of the spending cuts. Not the military. And one of the two deductions he retains is the MID, so that eliminates an obvious target. A glaring hole in his proposal; I wonder if the cuts will reduce growth. The distributional effects, not including the spending cuts which would ineluctably target the non-wealthy, are skewed towards those who make over $500,000. Now that's a genuine conservative Republican tax plan.

Yep, Michigan's GOP has gone off of the deep end on this issue.

They're doing more than just that..

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/1...rriage-by-banning-all-non-religious-weddings/

The creativity is admirable. And entertaining.

Cute. There are churches that endorse same-sex marriage. So homosexuals still win.

 

[Black Mamba]

Oh, this is good. A conservative Republican tax scheme that benefits the wealthy and creates larger deficits? Color me shocked. It has one or two proposals worth considering. Otherwise, it's a dismal proposal. Assuming the TF's economic analysis is accurate, that's a humorous thought, the budget gap will still approximate $ 1 trillion over a decade. So how does he account for the deficit? Unspecified spending cuts. Ah, yes. I wonder who will bear the brunt of the spending cuts. Not the military. And one of the two deductions he retains is the MID, so that eliminates an obvious target. A glaring hole in his proposal; I wonder if the cuts will reduce growth. The distributional effects, not including the spending cuts which would ineluctably target the non-wealthy, are skewed towards those who make over $500,000. Now that's a genuine conservative Republican tax plan.Cute. There are churches that endorse same-sex marriage. So homosexuals still win.

According to the Tax Foundation, tax cuts mean job growth, but education cuts don't mean anything.

 

[Coriolanus]

I wonder if the cuts will reduce growth.

Why wonder? When have aggressive cuts in government spending ever reduced growth? Heritage sez it's totes fine:

Shock and Awe vs. Steady and Consistent

Reducing government budget deficits generally means a stronger economy in the long run with little or no near-term ill-effects. The exception occurs when spending shifts quickly and in large amounts. The enormity of government spending means it plays a substantial role in the economy. Thus, rapid and unexpected reductions in spending can affect the economy like any other major shock, such as a rapid increase in the price of oil. Economic arrangements predicated on certain expectations about government spending are upended, rendering plans obsolete and inflicting losses on those affected.

This effect was apparent in the data on gross domestic product (GDP) for the fourth quarter of 2012. The preliminary data included a rapid drop in federal spending on national security. Apparently, and wisely, the Defense Department prepared for the substantial cuts to 2013 defense spending in case sequestration is allowed to take effect. These cuts threaten national security, and they cause enormous management problems for the Pentagon. They also mean a shock to the economy and so naturally there is a negative economic consequence.

However, the reduction in defense spending was not per se a cause of the reduction in overall GDP growth; the cause was the unexpected sharp reduction in spending, and this effect is fleeting because the economy will quickly adjust to the new level of spending.

I like how he worked the national security bit there.

 

[Plinko]

But then you might have to deal with the doofus Harper if he gets re-elected this fall.

(Regardless, I am more than happy I made the move to Canada, especially since it meant me getting the fuck out of Michigan)

Hey now, don't talk ill of this great state.

Moving away from Michigan is one of the best moves I've ever made. 80% of the state is Tea Party central.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Moving away from Michigan is one of the best moves I've ever made. 80% of the state is Tea Party central.

I dunno, man. I've been to Electric Forrest.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Rand Paul: Blow up the tax code and start over



"When combined with my package of spending cuts" suggests the Tax Foundation told him his tax plan would reduce government revenue. I'd be interested in seeing a more detailed analysis.

I'm confused on how Paul helps the working poor by repealing the payroll tax, then hitting them upside the head with a regressive flat tax. Why bother and just leave the tax code as is if you're going to go back and forth like that?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Moving away from Michigan is one of the best moves I've ever made. 80% of the state is Tea Party central.

I'm in Ypsi/Ann Arbor. Feels good man.

 

[User 406]

It makes me a little uneasy that Obama talked about guns when he spoke of charleston... This is less about guns and more about race.

Guns in this country are about race. In the frontier times, people had guns to drive off the Native Americans whose land they were invading. In the antebellum south they were used to keep an entire people subjugated as slaves. Those same guns were used in the bloodiest conflict in our nation's history for the sole purpose of keeping those slaves.

For decades of Jim Crow the guns were used to keep the freed blacks terrorized and helpless. Our only solid steps toward gun control ever were taken when black people started waving them around during the Civil Rights Era. With television came an endless parade of black suspects to terrify the populace and drive up the ranks of the NRA and fatten the pockets of gunmakers. All throughout this our heavily armed police forces kept up a constant pattern of violence and oppression against black citizens, with sanctioned murder after sanctioned murder.

Right wing extremists whipped into a frenzy by AM radio demagogues telling them that their country was being stolen from them by hordes of dark skinned moochers and criminals hoarded quantities of armaments that would beggar some countries' militaries. And now we have white open carry activists acting like belligerent fools every chance they get with no repercussions, while unarmed black men, women, KIDS are slaughtered in a hail of bullets, because the cops who were called in by terrified white people just HAD to shoot, they HAD to, they were in fear for their lives, who knows what kind of weapons these thugs could have had, we have the right to defend ourselves from them!

Anyone scratching their head over just why our gun culture is so insane in comparison with other countries that do allow some gun ownership just isn't paying attention. We worship guns because we are terrified of the people we've always used them on. American guns are racism. They're inseparable.

 

[Diablos]

Thanks, Larry. I like how he didn't apologize until his sixth sentence. In a tweet.

I also love how he tries to maintain a sense of knowing what's really happening behind closed doors. "Decision very soon." No shit!

 

[B-Dubs]

I also love how he tries to maintain a sense of knowing what's really happening behind closed doors. "Decision very soon." No shit!

This is exactly why for leaks like this you either get confirmation from 2-3 independent sources or don't run with it. If you get it wrong you look like an idiot.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I also love how he tries to maintain a sense of knowing what's really happening behind closed doors. "Decision very soon." No shit!

Inside source told me the presidential election was happening tomorrow. Sorry. Should be happening before the end of 2016 maybe.

 

[Macho Madness]

Inside source told me the presidential election was happening tomorrow. Sorry. Should be happening before the end of 2016 maybe.

 

[Chichikov]

There's no way Ginsburg is doing Obergefell. This is Kennedy's legacy. Like, his ONLY legacy.

Marriage equality is Scalia's legacy.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Marriage equality is Scalia's legacy.

Man that dissent is sure gonna be something else.

 

[Jack Remington]

Kagan should write KvB.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Yes. Alabama. Passed one of their chambers.

Not really. The Alabama bill replaced marriage licenses with a system of contractual recordation. Rather that applying to a probate court for issuance of a marriage license, a couple would simply sign a marriage contract and file it with the probate court for recording. It didn't affect the other aspects of marriage.

 

[KingK]

Moving away from Michigan is one of the best moves I've ever made. 80% of the state is Tea Party central.

I'm from the Michiana area of northern IN and southern MI. I always got the impression that, politically speaking, Michigan was just the same as Indiana but with less white voters (proportionally). I certainly can't wait to move and leave this state. Hopefully within the next 12-14 months I'll have moved. I just need to finish my degree next semester first and then save up some money.

Guns in this country are about race. In the frontier times, people had guns to drive off the Native Americans whose land they were invading. In the antebellum south they were used to keep an entire people subjugated as slaves. Those same guns were used in the bloodiest conflict in our nation's history for the sole purpose of keeping those slaves.

For decades of Jim Crow the guns were used to keep the freed blacks terrorized and helpless. Our only solid steps toward gun control ever were taken when black people started waving them around during the Civil Rights Era. With television came an endless parade of black suspects to terrify the populace and drive up the ranks of the NRA and fatten the pockets of gunmakers. All throughout this our heavily armed police forces kept up a constant pattern of violence and oppression against black citizens, with sanctioned murder after sanctioned murder.

Right wing extremists whipped into a frenzy by AM radio demagogues telling them that their country was being stolen from them by hordes of dark skinned moochers and criminals hoarded quantities of armaments that would beggar some countries' militaries. And now we have white open carry activists acting like belligerent fools every chance they get with no repercussions, while unarmed black men, women, KIDS are slaughtered in a hail of bullets, because the cops who were called in by terrified white people just HAD to shoot, they HAD to, they were in fear for their lives, who knows what kind of weapons these thugs could have had, we have the right to defend ourselves from them!

Anyone scratching their head over just why our gun culture is so insane in comparison with other countries that do allow some gun ownership just isn't paying attention. We worship guns because we are terrified of the people we've always used them on. American guns are racism. They're inseparable.

Great post. The issues have definitely been linked together throughout the country's history.

I really wish we'd see more in the media/politics call this shooting what it is: an act of domestic terrorism.

 

[Black Mamba]

Jon Stewart's opening tonight about the SC shooting was so on point. He didn't even have any prepared jokes. He's just fed up, as we all should be, with what's going on.

https://vid.me/45na

 

[HyperionX]

I'm from the Michiana area of northern IN and southern MI. I always got the impression that, politically speaking, Michigan was just the same as Indiana but with less white voters (proportionally). I certainly can't wait to move and leave this state. Hopefully within the next 12-14 months I'll have moved. I just need to finish my degree next semester first and then save up some money.


Great post. The issues have definitely been linked together throughout the country's history.

I really wish we'd see more in the media/politics call this shooting what it is: an act of domestic terrorism.

My motto is simply: Unwillingness to control guns is the true racism. The next time you hear someone claim gun control "has its roots in racism," turn the argument on its head and show how the opposite is true.

 

[eBay Huckster]

But then you might have to deal with the doofus Harper if he gets re-elected this fall.

(Regardless, I am more than happy I made the move to Canada, especially since it meant me getting the fuck out of Michigan)

at this point, that's a risk I'm willing to take

(especially because that move means I get the hell out of Ohio)

 

[PhoenixDark]

Guns aren't the problem, and I think Obama made a mistake by highlighting gun control again. This guy got a gun regardless of laws, and most mass shooting perpetrators don't have criminal records or anything else that would prevent them from getting a gun. If you want to address gun violence you whould go after straw purchases and gun trafficking.

It should be quite clear by now that the public doesn't give a fuck about gun control. That won't change anytime soon. The people who care the most about guns vote almost exclusively on that issue, whereas gun control supporters don't vote based on that issue (no matter what liberal push pollsters tell you). Someone blew little white kids to pieces in a school and nothing changed. That ship has sailed, and tbh I'd rather see Obama call out the public's apathy on the issue than more lectures about soul searching.

We can talk about guns or mental illness but ultimately this is the case of a racist who meticulously plotted to kill black people. In a state that is still wrapped in racist history.

 

[HyperionX]

Guns aren't the problem, and I think Obama made a mistake by highlighting gun control again. This guy got a gun regardless of laws, and most mass shooting perpetrators don't have criminal records or anything else that would prevent them from getting a gun. If you want to address gun violence you whould go after straw purchases and gun trafficking.

It should be quite clear by now that the public doesn't give a fuck about gun control. That won't change anytime soon. The people who care the most about guns vote almost exclusively on that issue, whereas gun control supporters don't vote based on that issue (no matter what liberal push pollsters tell you). Someone blew little white kids to pieces in a school and nothing changed. That ship has sailed, and tbh I'd rather see Obama call out the public's apathy on the issue than more lectures about soul searching.

We can talk about guns or mental illness but ultimately this is the case of a racist who meticulously plotted to kill black people. In a state that is still wrapped in racist history.

This is why I'm not a fan of half-assed solutions to gun control. Extremely aggressive solutions (widespread gun bans, repealing the 2nd amendment, mass confiscation, highly restrictive licensing laws, etc.) are very rational solutions to the problem. IMO the biggest problem is how people dismiss these ideas rather than take them seriously.

 

[Oblivion]

Okay, I've been out of the Poligaf loop all week cause of E3, but now that that's over, I can now focus my energies away from Nintendo, and back to the GOP as America's biggest enemy.

I see that we still don't have a ruling on King. If the SC rules against the subsidies, this would mark the worst June in History.

 

[ivysaur12]

Not really. The Alabama bill replaced marriage licenses with a system of contractual recordation. Rather that applying to a probate court for issuance of a marriage license, a couple would simply sign a marriage contract and file it with the probate court for recording. It didn't affect the other aspects of marriage.

Well, the text of the bill said it didn't affect other aspects of marriage, but the whole reason it died in the House committee were concerns over the bill's potential implications for straight couples and their benefits and that it wasn't well thought out.

But I guess that wasn't the spirit of Betram's question. It got Alabama out of the marriage license business, but I don't actually know what it would've practically done?

 

[thepotatoman]

This is why I'm not a fan of half-assed solutions to gun control. Extremely aggressive solutions (widespread gun bans, repealing the 2nd amendment, mass confiscation, highly restrictive licensing laws, etc.) are very rational solutions to the problem. IMO the biggest problem is how people dismiss these ideas rather than take them seriously.

It's really quite amazing how entrenched this country is with their guns. Seriously, why is it so important to be able to own guns?

To keep you safe? Owning a gun just statistically increases your chance of being killed by gunfire, thanks to accidents, escalating problems that shouldn't be escalated, and by having one of the easiest and most successful suicide options at easy access. For every rare circumstance of a gun saving a life, there's many others where a life was taken, solely because of a gun.

To hunt? Is the sanctity of a fairly niche sport is really worth the countless lives of human beings lost to gun violence?

Because it's in the constitution? Is an amendment written by slave owners really that sacred and relevant to today's society that we can't even question it?

Because we wouldn't be able to enforce it? America is one of the biggest manufacturers of guns in the world. Illegalizing it would put a huge dent in the availability of guns. Even if it were somehow impossible, why not at least try?

To overthrow the government and keep the police in check? You really believe the government is scared at all by the prospect of a violent revolution, when they're clearly still scared of a simple democrat vote? And the police are way more quick to shoot people largely because they're so afraid of the fact that every single person on the street could easily be hiding a gun that can be shot at them in a split second.

And yet people are terrified to even ask the question, "Should the 2nd amendment be repealed". Not even just politicians running for office, but your average uber-liberal internet blog, or your local Democrat meetup. Even in these liberal spaces there still plenty of hardcore pro-2nd amendment people, while the opinion singled out as controversial is the one that even asks if we can even have background checks.

Maybe the answer is to get various liberals from the ones on internet boards to the ones writing for the New York Times to finally go full out and say "Fuck the second amendment" if only to move the overton window on the issue. Trying to focus on middle of the road things clearly isn't working politically or in public discourse, which isn't surprising considering that these solutions would barely make a dent on the type of problem we're facing.

 

[benjipwns]

Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.

there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

-H.L. Mencken

 

[benjipwns]

This capacious understanding of government speech takes a large and painful bite out of the First Amendment. Specialty plates may seem innocuous. They make motorists happy, and they put money in a State’s coffers. But the precedent this case sets is dangerous. While all license plates unquestionably contain some government speech (e.g., the name of the State and the numbers and/or letters identifying the vehicle), the State of Texas has converted the remaining space on its specialty plates into little mobile billboards on which motorists can display their own messages. And what Texas did here was to reject one of the messages that members of a private group wanted to post on some of these little billboards because the State thought that many of its citizens would find the message offensive. That is blatant viewpoint discrimination.

If the State can do this with its little mobile billboards,could it do the same with big, stationary billboards? Suppose that a State erected electronic billboards along its highways. Suppose that the State posted some government messages on these billboards and then, to raise money, allowed private entities and individuals to purchase the right to post their own messages. And suppose that the State allowed only those messages that it liked or found not too controversial. Would that be constitutional? What if a state college or university did the same thing with a similar billboard or a campus bulletin board or dorm list serve? What if it allowed private messages that are consistent with prevailing views on campus but banned those that disturbed some students or faculty? Can there be any doubt that these examples of viewpoint discrimination would violate the First Amendment? I hope not, but the future uses of today’s precedent remain to be seen.

...

The Texas specialty plate program also does not exhibit the “selective receptivity” present in Summum. To the contrary, Texas’s program is not selective by design. The Board’s chairman, who is charged with approving designs, explained that the program’s purpose is “to encourage private plates” in order to “generate additional revenue for the state.” Ibid., 58. And most of the time, the Board “bases [its] decisions on rules that primarily deal with reflectivity and readability.” Ibid. A Department brochure explains: “Q. Who provides the plate design? A. You do, though your design is subject to reflectivity, legibility, and design standards.” Id., at 67.b.

Pressed to come up with any evidence that the State has exercised “selective receptivity,” Texas (and the Court) rely primarily on sketchy information not contained in the record, specifically that the Board’s predecessor (might have) rejected a “pro-life” plate and perhaps others on the ground that they contained messages that were offensive. See ante, at 11 (citing Reply Brief 10 and Tr. of Oral Arg. 49–51). But even if this happened, it shows only that the present case may not be the only one in which the State has exercised viewpoint discrimination.

Texas’s only other (also extrarecord) evidence of selectivity concerns a proposed plate that was thought to create a threat to the fair enforcement of the State’s motor vehicle laws.

...

The constitutionality of this Board action does not necessarily turn on whether approval of this plate would have made the message government speech. If, as I believe, the Texas specialty plate program created a limited public forum, private speech may be excluded if it is inconsistent with the purpose of the forum. Rosenberger, 515 U. S., at 829. Thus, even if Texas’s extrarecord information is taken into account, the picture here is different from that in Summum. Texas does not take care to approve only those proposed plates that convey messages that the State supports. Instead, it proclaims that it is open to all private messages—except those, like the SCV plate, that would offend some who viewed them. The Court believes that messages on privately created plates are government speech because motorists want a seal of state approval for their messages and therefore prefer plates over bumper stickers. Ante, at 10–11. This is dangerous reasoning. There is a big difference between government speech (that is, speech by the government in furtherance of its programs) and governmental blessing (or condemnation) of private speech. Many private speakers in a forum would welcome a sign of government approval. But in the realm of private speech, government regulation may not favor one viewpoint over another.

...

States have not adopted specialty license plate programs like Texas’s because they are now bursting with things they want to say on their license plates. Those programs were adopted because they bring in money. Texas makes public the revenue totals generated by its specialty plate program, and it is apparent that the program brings in many millions of dollars every year. See http://www.txdmv.gov/reports-and-data/doc_download/5050–specialty-plates-revenue-fy-1994-2014.

Texas has space available on millions of little mobile billboards. And Texas, in effect, sells that space to those who wish to use it to express a personal message—provided only that the message does not express a viewpoint that the State finds unacceptable. That is not government speech; it is the regulation of private speech.

...

Messages that are proposed by private parties and placed on Texas specialty plates are private speech, not government speech. Texas cannot forbid private speech based on its viewpoint. That is what it did here. Because the Court approves this violation of the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent.

Spoiler

I forgot what date my ban was up.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Welcome back.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Has Lindsey "Benghazi" Graham made any comments about the mass shooting that took place in his home state?

 

[Coriolanus]

To hunt? Is the sanctity of a fairly niche sport is really worth the countless lives of human beings lost to gun violence?

Eh.... i don't particularly care about hunting, but arguing that the sorta rifles used for hunting are contributing in any meaningful way to human violence seems a bit weird. Got any data to back that up?