Supreme Court Declines IL "Choose Life" License Plate Case
I was a plaintiff in the IL Choose Life specialty plate lawsuit against the State of IL (specifically Secretary of State Jesse White), which, btw, implicated former state Sen. Barack Obama.
Reported The Washington Times this morning:
Also Monday, the high court declined to consider several cases, including:
-- An appeal from a pro-life group that wanted to require Illinois to provide vanity license plates that stated "Choose Life." The state opposed producing such license plates, which are available in 21 other states.
I previously wrote about the IL Choose Life specialty plate debacle - and Obama's slimy part in it - in a WorldNetDaily.com column.
Co-plaintiff Dan Proft, now candidate for governor in IL, wrote in a press release yesterday:
The Court's inaction in this case means the state may continue to deny IL motorists the option to purchase Choose Life license plates.
Every IL voter should ask themselves why the Chicago Democrats would go to the Supreme Court of the United States to thwart providing Illinoisans with the means to voluntarily support adoption service providers, while raising awareness of adoption as a loving option in the process, and frustrate efforts to help the most vulnerable children in our society find a loving home. On behalf of their pro-abortion contributors, the Chicago Democrats gladly trample your free speech rights in the bargain.
Such is the state in which I live. Corruption and evil intent rule.
Our attorney Tom Brejcha of the Thomas More Society will request a rehearing, although the chance is slim the Supremes will reconsider.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
You actually thought you had a case? The state is allowed to promote any position it so chooses (aside from religion which is given special protections), so it is within perfect legal grounds to deny the promotion of this arbitrary form of free speech which the state has no compelling interest to promote. The constitution doesn't force the states to promote your beliefs, nor does any state constitution or law . You won't find it anywhere. You are creating constitutional authority out of thin air. No where does it say the state must promote your form of free speech because you want it too, there is no "trampling of your free speech rights" here - they are trampling over your fake belief in that the states are constitutionally obligated to promote your free speech no matter what.
The irony is, if you got your wish that the state must promote arbitrary forms of free speech without discrimination (in blatant violation of the constitution) the state could not stop the production of a plate that says "Choose Abortion and Kill Babies."
It's unfathomable how ignorant you are to think you have a right to force the state to promote your believes. If you want this done, start a grass roots campaign, get signatures, create political pressure, and the politicians will cave. Don't flood the legal system with your frivolous, BS lawsuits.
Forcing the state of Ill. to take this side in this issue is a political move. I am not surprised to see it go the way it went. We are talking about Ill., after all.
Now, I think you are being a little harsh about Jill's method. Her method is fundamentally no different in the grand scheme of things than the ACLU "flooding the legal system". You just don't like it because you disagree with the premise of adoption as an alternative to abortion .
Jill did apply political pressure, as you suggested she should. It was fruitless. She then took it to the next level. Is that really a violation of her prerogative? Do you even have standing to argue against her futile quest?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
do it if she wants, but it's fairly clear it's a waste of time. The legal system is already overwhelmed and I get pissed when people put lawsuits in the system which are clearly a waste of everyone's time.
On the ACLU, they actually often do make many valid claims before the court. They also make a decent number of claims that are a waste of time, I'd be just as critical of them if (and they have) make claims that clearly are foolish and flood are legal systems.
Good comment.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.