This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It first appeared at The Conversation.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1400208
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1400208
1 Like
A federal district court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Boston on the grounds that flying a flag on the third flagpole was government speech, not private speech – and therefore the city was entitled to refuse to fly the Christian flag on its flagpole.
Camp Constitution appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted review.
The case’s outcome will likely hinge on the Supreme Court’s determination of whose views are represented by the flagpole outside City Hall: the private organization whose flag is temporarily flying, or the government. In other words, this case is about who is “speaking” when that flag goes up, and whose free speech rights are protected.
If the court determines that Camp Constitution is speaking, then a framework the court has developed, known as the “public forum doctrine,” will apply. This would likely result in a ruling favoring Camp Constitution.
If the court determines that the city of Boston is speaking, then the court’s government speech doctrine will apply. This would likely result in a ruling favoring Boston.
A few years ago the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Texas, that refused to allow the Sons of Confederate Veterans to participate in the state’s license plate program, that raises money for various non-profits. The reasoning, as I recall, was that the license plates, issued by the State of Texas, were the government’s own speech, and therefore the state could decide what it did or did not want to put out.
That was a reasonable decision, and seems to me should apply here, as well.
12 Likes
Anyone wanna bet on how this will be found?
5 Likes
Wasn’t there the case a few years ago regarding Ten Commandments outside courtrooms? Is the Christian Taliban trying to galvanize that ruling?
Much as I disagree with Scalia, I agree with this quote from him:
“What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle.”
8 Likes
Wait, I thought the Stars and Stripes already WAS the Christian Flag?
Or vice versa…
10 Likes
I’ll bet 10 Quatloos that the “Christian flag” won’t be allowed, on the grounds that not even this court will say that’s the only one that can be used, and they won’t want to deal with the Satanists wanting equal time on the flag pole.
11 Likes
I think they will always favor the Rich, White, Republican, Christianists (in that order) so the 5 or 6 will rule in favor of the Christian flag provided other flags are accommodated. Then they let Republicans at the local level subvert the intent.
As God intended
11 Likes
IOKIYAWC*, would be my guess, since the Tealiban element seems hell bent on breaking the church:state wall.
For Xian and white versions of church, of course.
*It’s OK if your a white christian
5 Likes
What is it about the very first clause of the First Amendment that these people, and possibly some Supreme Court Justices fail to understand?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Could the Founders have been any more clear?
5 Likes
I suspect at least one of the justices will stop and think “If we allow this, Satan worshipers could have their flag fly as well. Even worse, Jews and Muslims!”
11 Likes
Not if 5-6 members believe that Christian speech should be government speech.
4 Likes
Perhaps a disclaimer banner: "Current flag does not necessarily reflect the views blah, blah, blah…
2 Likes
As a Christian, I find the idea of a “Christian” flag repulsive, and the photo of the Christian flag flying underneath the US flag speaks more truth than the instigators probably realize.
17 Likes
You site the exact problem in NOT having an American Supreme Court and instead having a Republican Supreme Court that determines every case not on the Constitution or passed rulings but on whatever will help Republicans take and hold power.
That is under long standing Constitutional law principle the Government is forbidden from putting it IMPRIMATUR on religion and especially a particular religion.
By flying a religious flag at city hall, at a minimum Boston would be putting Government’s imprimatur on religion and in this case it is a particular religion. That is under well established constitutional law there is no way Boston should be allowed to fly a Christian flag at City Hall.
That said, my money is on the Supreme Court ruling against Boston.
5 Likes
Catholic flag? Lutheran flag? Baptist flag? UU flag? There is no such thing as “a” Christian flag. Let the Christians fight it out amongst themselves first, just like they did in Europe back in the good old days when they would slaughter each other for their heretical definitions of what “Christianity” actually was.
And maybe this might help remind some of them why the Wall of Separation was truly a great idea in the first place.
13 Likes
These groups always bring up the pride flag as to why “their group” should be allowed to fly their flag… but as far as I can tell you can be LGBTQ and any religion (or none), whereas the “Christian” flag is exclusive to one particular religion. It’s that exclusivity of speech that is the primary question – which is why “Christian” campus groups have repeatedly lost in efforts to restrict their memberships.
But that was before we got ACB, Gorsuch and the Beer Tears guy on the Court. I expect a 5-4 ruling that Boston must change its policy, with Roberts in the minority in order to preserve his façade of being “centrist” even though he gave us Citizens United and gutted the voting rights act.
5 Likes
Isn’t there some rule that two Appeals courts have to come up with opposing arguments in order for the Supremes to hear the case? How does this get to the Supremes when no two Courts of Appeals have disagreed with each other? District and First Court of Appeals agree with Boston City government.
4 Likes
Or that not allowing religious (Christian) speech is the same thing as discriminating against that (Christian) religion.
3 Likes
What a load of crap. Another frivolous lawsuit brought by Dominionist assholes. See, if your organization does not specify a religious purpose, feel free to fly a flag. See the First Amendment to the Constitution, please.
5 Likes
It’s a last resort when you lose elsewhere. There is no appeal from a SCOTUS decision.
2 Likes