Justice Alito exposes the left's double standard on speech
Acton Institute:
You probably haven’t even heard about it, but yesterday there was an exchange in the Supreme Court that future generations will regard as one of the most significant revelations of our political era.This is a great example of how the left thinks. Their positions are always reasonable and those of conservatives stink. They are incapable of seeing their own prejudices. Justice Alito demonstrated how a smart judge can expose prejudices.
The case of Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky concerns a Minnesota statute that broadly bans all political apparel at the polling place. When Andrew Cilek went to vote in 2010, he wore a shirt bearing the image of the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag and a button that read “Please I.D. Me.” The poll worker asked him to remove the shirt and button because it supposedly violated the state law.
...
In the oral arguments, Justice Alito agreed that the law does seem arbitrary and observed that “so many things have political connotations, and the connotations are in the eye of the beholder.” How could any poll worker, he asked, be even-handed in enforcing the regulation?
Daniel Rogan, who defended the statute for the state before the Court, responded that the political speech being conveyed by the wearer had to be “understood as relating to electoral choices and it has to be well-known.”
...
The exchange has to be seen in full to appreciate the devastating effect, so I’ll reprint each part and note which examples of clothing Rogan considers “political” and what he views as “not political”:
JUSTICE ALITO: How about a shirt with a rainbow flag? Would that be permitted?Rogan’s conclusion: A symbol for a liberal cause (gay rights) is notpolitical (unless there is something directly related to the issue on the ballot), and thus would be allowed.
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”?[Rogan hems and haws for a few moments while Alito pins him down]
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?
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 -
Rogan’s conclusion: A symbol for a liberal cause (gun control) is notpolitical, and thus would be allowed.
JUSTICE ALITO: Okay. How about an NRA shirt?Rogan’s conclusion: A symbol for a conservative cause (gun rights) would be political, and thus not allowed.
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?Rogan’s conclusion: The text of an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be considered political because it is primarily supported by conservatives, and thus not allowed.
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?Rogan’s conclusion: The text of an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would not be considered political because it’s supported by people other than just conservatives, and thus would be allowed.
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 allowed?
ROGAN: It would be allowed.
ALITO: . . . How about a Colin Kaepernick jersey?Rogan’s conclusion: The jersey of a football player best known for his left-leaning political activism with the Black Lives Matter movement would not be political, and thus would be allowed.
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”?Rogan’s conclusion: Text considered to be in opposition to the Black Lives Matter movement would be considered political, and thus not allowed.
ROGAN: That could be, Your Honor, that could be — that could be perceived as political.
JUSTICE ALITO: How about an “I Miss Bill” shirt?Rogan’s conclusion: Wearing clothes referring to politicians who have been out of office for decades is political, and thus not allowed.
ROGAN: I’m sorry, Your Honor? I didn’t -
JUSTICE ALITO: “I Miss Bill,” or to make it bipartisan, a “Reagan/Bush ’84” shirt?
ROGAN: Yes, Your Honor, I believe that that’s political.
I don’t know much about Mr. Rogan, but I suspect that most people would consider him to be a reasonable person. Yet when asked to apply the “reasonable observer” standard, Rogan consistently considered views on the left to be “non-political” and views on the right to be “political.”
...
Comments
Post a Comment