Federal district court rules against South Carolina's 'Christian' license plate

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Federal district court rules against South Carolina's 'Christian' license plate

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Federal district court rules against South Carolina's 'Christian' license plate

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Federal district court rules against South Carolina's '... - 11/15/2009 4:14:53 PM

Brain

Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline

It would not surprise me one bit if Anthony Scalia and the other right-wing Supreme Court justices reverse this if they have the opportunity. Of course, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie made the right decision.

Federal district court rules against South Carolina's 'Christian' license plate

“Whether motivated by sincerely held Christian beliefs or an effort to purchase political capital with religious coin, the result is the same,” Currie wrote. “The statute is clearly unconstitutional and defense of its implementation has embroiled the state in unnecessary (and expensive) litigation.”(Read the full decision.)

http://www.examiner.com/x-2044-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m11d14-Federal-district-court-rules-against-South-Carolinas-Christian-license-plate

Post #: 1

RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/15/2009 4:47:32 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

In the Politics and Religion index, this topic title is truncated to:

Federal district court rules against South Carolina's 'Christian' lice

K.

(in reply to Brain)

Post #: 2

RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/15/2009 5:14:23 PM

willbeurdaddy

Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

It should be overturned unless plates for other religions are not made available on an equal basis. There is nothing any more wrong with mentioning a religion on a license plate than there is in mentioning a battleship or "keep my beaches clean". Some people dont like battleships and some people dont like sand in their crotch.

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 3

RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/15/2009 5:43:41 PM

ThatDamnedPanda

Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

In the Politics and Religion index, this topic title is truncated to:

Federal district court rules against South Carolina's 'Christian' lice

K.

Yeah, and I support that ruling 100%. I don't care if they're christian or not, lice get no sympathy from me. My congratulations to the court for getting this one right.

_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 4

RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/15/2009 9:20:10 PM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

I live in S. Carolina now and I agree with the ruling too. Of course I agree with it because I don't have any use for *any* "religions."
On my license plate it says, "In God We Trust" and I don't have any problems with that.
God= good, religion = bad.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)

Post #: 5

RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/15/2009 9:25:50 PM

Elipsis

Posts: 301
Joined: 7/8/2009
Status: offline

It's unclear from the article... but were they actually trying to require everyone in South Carolina to have one of these plates?!

(in reply to popeye1250)

Post #: 6

RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/15/2009 9:32:12 PM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

It should be overturned unless plates for other religions are not made available on an equal basis. There is nothing any more wrong with mentioning a religion on a license plate than there is in mentioning a battleship or "keep my beaches clean". Some people dont like battleships and some people dont like sand in their crotch.

Yes there is.

Because state sanctioned support of religion or religious issues should not occur.

What would you be saying if a state came out with a "support choice" license plate?

Choose Life license plates: 10 years ago, Florida was the first ...Jun 10, 2009 ... Florida was the first state to pass Choose Life license plates and the tags have proved popular and difficult for an opposition plate.

< Message edited by rulemylife -- 11/15/2009 9:44:55 PM >

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)

Post #: 7

RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/15/2009 9:39:19 PM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elipsis

It's unclear from the article... but were they actually trying to require everyone in South Carolina to have one of these plates?!

No, it's a specialty plate that you can order.

(in reply to Elipsis)

Post #: 8

RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/15/2009 9:50:09 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

Americans United also pointed out that some legislators openly admitted that they would not vote for similar plates for minority faiths.

This is what made it wrong.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 9

RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/15/2009 9:52:25 PM

chiaThePet

Posts: 2694
Joined: 2/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elipsis

It's unclear from the article... but were they actually trying to require everyone in South Carolina to have one of these plates?!

No, it's a specialty plate that you can order.

OMG!

You mean the advertised Blue Plate special at Bojangles, ~Hallelujah Hash~ is Christians?!

Soylent Green! Soylent Green!

chia* (the pet)

_____________________________

Love is a many splendid sting.

You can stick me in the corner, but I'll probably just end up coloring on the walls.

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 10

RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/15/2009 10:09:33 PM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chiaThePet

OMG!

You mean the advertised Blue Plate special at Bojangles, ~Hallelujah Hash~ is Christians?!

Soylent Green! Soylent Green!

chia* (the pet)

Ch, Ch, Chia.

I'm not sure whether to advise you to lay off the drugs or start doing more.

(in reply to chiaThePet)

Post #: 11

RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 12:08:19 AM

slvemike4u

Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline

rule when given that choice.....allways choose more.
What have you got to lose

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 12

RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 2:23:02 AM

SirAldwyn

Posts: 44
Joined: 10/15/2009
Status: offline

I agree, I thought Jefferson made that very clear.

We are not a Christian country, the founding fathers went a long way to make sure that any religion was not supported by the role of government, what they wrote was that the people of this country are free to worship as they wish without involvement from the government.

So these plates would be an endorsement of a religion by our government.

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 13

RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 5:59:39 AM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

It isnt an endorsement, these plates are optional. What makes these plates wrong is the state doesnt offer tags for other religions. In that, they are endorsing christianity because they refuse other religions access to the same item.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to SirAldwyn)

Post #: 14

RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 6:49:51 AM

UncleNasty

Posts: 1108
Joined: 3/20/2004
Status: offline

A well written decision on Summary Judgment. Because it is a summary decision (at the federal level) it will be hard to overcome the decision on appeal. In short it must be demonstrated that the court erred as a matter of law in granting summary. This is unlikely as the 57 page Order and Opinion of Judge Currie is well researched, well supported and well written. Federal courts are typically more interested in adjudicating based on facts and law and will expend the time and energy to do exactly that.

State level judges at district and circuit levels are more inclined to do whatever is necessary to merely "clear" their dockets, often times rushing to judgment and denying due process. State Courts of Appeals and State Supreme Court judges are more closely aligned to Federal courts in their practices and applications of the law than they are to lower State courts.

If the decision is appealed it will first go to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit before going to the US Supreme Court. The first appeal could take a couple of years to work its way through the Fourth Circuit Appellate Court. An appeal to the US Supreme Court could take another couple of years so Scalia won't be ruling on this one anytime soon.

Uncle Nasty

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 15

RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 7:03:41 AM

SirAldwyn

Posts: 44
Joined: 10/15/2009
Status: offline

I guess one could say favoring is not endorsing, but it seems like they are endorsing one religion over all others. Which is why there should be no religious plates issued period.

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie held that the plate, which was to feature a large yellow cross, a stained-glass window and the words “I Believe,” clearly gives favored government treatment to one faith. In a summary judgment ruling, she ordered state officials not to issue the plate.

Just like every case that has been heard concerning crosses in court, on public grounds, in state building and any other religious icon

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 16

RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 7:21:25 AM

Lucienne

Posts: 1175
Joined: 9/5/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty

A well written decision on Summary Judgment. Because it is a summary decision (at the federal level) it will be hard to overcome the decision on appeal. In short it must be demonstrated that the court erred as a matter of law in granting summary. This is unlikely as the 57 page Order and Opinion of Judge Currie is well researched, well supported and well written. Federal courts are typically more interested in adjudicating based on facts and law and will expend the time and energy to do exactly that.

State level judges at district and circuit levels are more inclined to do whatever is necessary to merely "clear" their dockets, often times rushing to judgment and denying due process. State Courts of Appeals and State Supreme Court judges are more closely aligned to Federal courts in their practices and applications of the law than they are to lower State courts.

If the decision is appealed it will first go to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit before going to the US Supreme Court. The first appeal could take a couple of years to work its way through the Fourth Circuit Appellate Court. An appeal to the US Supreme Court could take another couple of years so Scalia won't be ruling on this one anytime soon.

Uncle Nasty

A few notes... An appeals court doesn't have to give any deference to a trial court's conclusions of law. The 4th Cir. is stocked full of conservative nuts. And please point me to the jurisdiction where trial court judges aren't afraid to grant summary judgment.

(in reply to UncleNasty)

Post #: 17

RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 7:23:25 AM

BoiJen

Posts: 2608
Joined: 3/7/2007
Status: offline

This is interesting given that Florida has a "Pro-Life" license plate available.

_____________________________

Clips of MsKitty doin' stuff to me. Support the fan club, buy a clip today.

(in reply to SirAldwyn)

Post #: 18

RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 7:38:32 AM

SirAldwyn

Posts: 44
Joined: 10/15/2009
Status: offline

How is Pro Life a religious plate? It's a legal issue on a government level and a moral issue on a personal level.

Being pro life does say you are for or against any religion

(in reply to BoiJen)

Post #: 19

RE: Federal district court rules against South Carolina... - 11/16/2009 7:53:45 AM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

This is interesting given that Florida has a "Pro-Life" license plate available.

Florida and 24 other states.

(in reply to BoiJen)

Post #: 20

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Federal district court rules against South Carolina's 'Christian' license plate

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.096