More goofiness courtesy of overpaid and underworked “educators.” I wonder how much of our tax money went into this silliness.

although….that is a good little fact to know! ;O)

How are you doing?

It is an interesting fact to know. Why do I think this will become one of those topics? Oh, wait – every topic now becomes one of those topics.

That said, let the foaming and ranting begin!

In a related story, Media Matters & The Daily Kos are urging their friends in Congress to outlaw the American Flag.

“with more lapel pins that a Fridays waitress”
Copy editor needed.

Republicans are teabagger nazi loving homophobes that hate the country and want to destroy it, so lets burn all flags so that nobody ever becomes republican again……

AMIDOINITRITE??

This is why the left hates the American flag and the 4th of July.

That’s crazy. I don’t believe it. 

To Conservatives, every day is July 4th, to liberals every day is April 15th.

I  Suggest That Viewing A Five Pound Block Of  ’ FREE ‘  Cheese Influences Lib Voters To Vote Obama.

It’s from Cornell University, you know one of those cool Ivy League schools.

It’s from Cornell University, you know one of those cool Ivy League schools.

You forgot to call everyone a racist and mention the Koch brothers.

B-minus

You forgot to call everyone a racist and mention the Koch brothers.

B-minus

Damn, guess I better study up on my left wing hate language.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

simple is as simple does. 

is any of this surprising? lapel pins?  all of FNC’s backgrounds?  flag stickers on the car or flying high attached to a car window?

they only know that patriotism = flag.  nothing else because they are wrapped only in symbology.

You have to be kidding me, right?

Very true.  Good thing Democrats never use the flag to help sell themselves.

http://www.collegetribune.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/USI-hope-to-have-an-Obama-style-campaign-bus-travelling-across-the-country.jpeg

Just put an american soldier on a donkey wrapped in an American FLAG climbing a mountain and we can reframe the message. America was built with horses and donkeys pulling the plows. I never for a minute think Party ahead of country when I see an American flag. I see courage, love and hope. If people can only see Republican when they see the flag, they really are drinking the KoolAID of the TPARTY NATION and King Grover has met his goal.

Plausible.  

However, I’d like to see the study replicated in, or, for other Nations.  For instance, does flying the Union Jack in Great Britain have a similar effect?  Does the National symbol encourage nationalism, virtually evrywhere?

Moreover, does flying the flag enrage Liberals enough whereby they become irrational and prone to mendacity?  How does seeing a flag while driving, affect a Liberal’s driving ability?  Consistent with the Liberal need for a nanny state, America might have to ban the flying of flags, because it causes stress in Liberals?
Of course we’ll need more studies and more money to determine the veracity of this theory…

Purveyor

What are you calling crazy – the study or staring at a five pound block of government cheese makes liberals vote democrat?

I used to live in Golden Colorado.  Right next to the VFW hall is a little Bar that tends to get overflow and  afterflow from the VFW.  On a lark, one Memorial Day weekend a few of us went around the neighborhood asking the homeowners who were flying flags about their politics…

Need I say more?   LOL

Viewing the flag influences you to vote republican, thats not unusual considering who the more patriotic party has become. If you are a liberal democRat citizenship doesn’t mean a thing. Look at their immigration policy. Amnesty for more votes now that is patriotic.

No shocker here. Of the Democrats I know, most of them have told me that they are not patriotic. I was raised to be VERY patriotic.

BOOM

The left only cares about the flag when it’s draped over a soldier’s coffin, or when they’re burning it in the streets in protest of something.

And they do that when Republicans are in the White House.

And then when a Republican flies the flag proudly when either party is in office, they’re accused of “draping themselves in the flag.”

Like all of their other little stunts, it’s incoherent, disingenuous and tiresome.

So fly that flag, and smile when the nearest leftist to you cringes with embarrassment.

Of course, as a commenter above pointed out, Democrats appear to be OK with using the country’s colors and flag imagery…when it’s part of their President’s campaign propaganda:

http://www.collegetribune.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/USI-hope-to-have-an-Obama-style-campaign-bus-travelling-across-the-country.jpeg

Is Mediaite just now hearing about this story?  Wow…talking about behind behind the curve.  This is a week old now:  http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/07/20/shock-study-us-flag-only-boosts-gop

When is your 14th birthday, I want to be sure to send you a card.

There might have to be a tax instituted just for US flags to help subsidize other flags. You know………like the Che flag or the Mao flag or the Cuban flag or the Mexican flag.

It is not fair that lefties have to pay full price for their flags, better to subsidize them to make it more “fair”.

There might have to be a tax instituted just for US flags to help subsidize other flags. You know………like the Che flag or the Mao flag or the Cuban flag or the Mexican flag.

It is not fair that lefties have to pay full price for their flags, better to subsidize them to make it more “fair”.

There might have to be a tax instituted just for US flags to help subsidize other flags. You know………like the Che flag or the Mao flag or the Cuban flag or the Mexican flag.

It is not fair that lefties have to pay full price for their flags, better to subsidize them to make it more “fair”.

I had the same thought. I was looking for new news because I was on the road for a week. I have not even visited Drudge yet!

I had the same thought. I was looking for new news because I was on the road for a week. I have not even visited Drudge yet!

I had the same thought. I was looking for new news because I was on the road for a week. I have not even visited Drudge yet!

So your one of the people saying liberals are unpatriotic, yet you post a picture like that. 
Simple IS as simple does.

How shitty to question a stranger’s patriotism. You can bitch about policies back and fourth, but at the end of the day we’re all Americans. How dare you.

Of course.  How ironic.  The GOP has never, ever been a breeding ground for patriotism or heroism.  Such a sham.

DAVID KRAMER’s back, and he’s mad. You saw the movie, now see the video…”DAVID KRAMER” II, After the Truckstop! LOL Man-o-man, the comments I get from Lefties with no sense of humor!

“Of course.  How ironic.”  The Space Aliens circling the moon and earth that land in your backyard, “has never been a “breeding ground for patriotism or heroism.  Such a sham.”

This silly statement probably has more credibility than the unsupported assertion of yours.  The only difference is, I am not serious!

Purveyor

No surprises here.

Let’s remember hehimself refused to salute the flag during the pledge and refused to wear a flag lapel pin.

A republican would never be embarrassed to show love and support for this country, same can’t be said for the democrats.

The Carney barker and his boss are willing to default…they are stopping all roads to a resolution.

Another senseless study that Media gives an outlet to.. kinda like a comment section huh..
A place to go when bored or when the TV program moves to commercial. anyways…oh look from a college.
College, higher education? dude..pass the bong we got studies to do…we will lead some day..
Let’s get a study on paint drying next.. we can just get high and watch it.. we could get funded!
BTW that study also exist and probably has a more valid point to exist.
 

But this does seem to prove that the flag has magical brainwashing capabilities.

 
Sounds like commie propaganda to me.. oh anyways… another attempt to remove the flag from site?
 
The only thing that could be better is if when arriving under that flag, a copy of the Constitution would be there for me to read. give me more..that’s my kind of Brainwash. Least it has value and substance. We as American’s find this wrong why? We spend tax dollars to learn what we already know as Americans? Some more cuts in funding are needed right here. Maybe it’s best to carry a sickle and hammer on your lapel? Another tax funded study on stupid?
 

Exactly, Rob!

I’m criticizing the concept that how one displays/wraps themselves in ______ (in this case, American Flag) is a true measure of their ______ (in this case, patriotism). 

It’s like if one doesn’t wear “red/white/blue” on July 4th or have a flag, they aren’t a patriot.  Which is absurd. 

Or if they don’t looooooove the president (YEAH, TALKING TO YOU REPUBS HERE), they are unpatriotic.  The same posters on this very board that complain about Obama are no different than those that complained about Bush in the sense that complaining about your President, the way you think the direction of the country is taking, etc., is “unpatriotic” or “unamerican”.  It’s not.  It’s opinion, it’s your voice.  And those who disagree with a president may consider their stance to be MORE patriotic than what the president is saying/doing. 

The Flag just a symbol, but there seems to be one side of the political divide that needs to put on a show/display regarding their “patriotism” more than another side. 

And sometimes I wonder what they’re compensating for…

Now, just stare at the screen and relax, that’s it, relax, now, you’re growing very stupid…..very stupid, that’s it, now when I snap my fingers, you’ll wake up and be republican.

Report Suggests That Viewing American Flag Influences Voters To Vote Republican

….and a Russian Flag influences voters to vote Democratic. Nothing new here. LOL

I prefer the Gadsden flag myself.

Naturally, it reminds us of why we hate progressives/communists. 

Liberals are misunderstood unicorn riding patriots. I don’t know why you don’t see that socialist Nirvana is just at the end of the rainbow. Does that make you FEEL better. Go see a psyciatrist, adults at play.

I believe that a large generation of American males watched Chuck Connors as ‘The Rifleman.

I am?  Where did I say that?

Perhaps you should read the comment I was replying to, before you imagine what I’m saying.

Don’t you ever get tired of repeating these same old lies about the salute and the pin?  They’ve both been disproved six ways from Sunday and as for you’re second line well, you’re an idiot. The only resoulution needed is a clean increase with no conditions as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush received 25 times.

Because even FIVE YEAR OLDS know that the demoNcrat party is full of a bunch of FIFTH COLUMN COMMIE TRAITORS who blanche at the sight of a FLAG, the way a vampire does at a CROSS. All you have to do is listen to them SPEAK, there is a reason that the “blame America first crowd” , is called the BLAME AMERICA FIRST CROWD!!!!

I’m sure AG Steadman will pursue voter intimidation charges against poll workers who permit flags to be displayed at polling places.

Are you sure it wasn’t the cow college?

Something weird is going on here? Another study that correlates patriotism to Republicanism in a negative way. Sounds like the vast left-wing conspiracy to me!

http://www.ewross.com/warning_to_democrats_avoid_fourth_of_july_celebrations.htm

Kudos for your posting!
It is important to distinguish “nationalism” from patriotism in that a nationalist is more likely to say “My country, right or wrong,” while a patriot is more inclined to say “I will help make my country be the best it can be, even if it requires personal sacrifice,” such as military service or HONEST public service. Even participating in the political process is patriotic.

As a bottom line, anybody can use a flag to rally supporters to his/her cause, and there are too many other variables in what should change a voters mind. It could very well be that those same voters who changed their minds saw more logic in the Republican arguments. If I were a registered Republican, that is what I would argue.

Kudos for your posting!
It is important to distinguish “nationalism” from patriotism in that a nationalist is more likely to say “My country, right or wrong,” while a patriot is more inclined to say “I will help make my country be the best it can be, even if it requires personal sacrifice,” such as military service or HONEST public service. Even participating in the political process is patriotic.

As a bottom line, anybody can use a flag to rally supporters to his/her cause, and there are too many other variables in what should change a voters mind. It could very well be that those same voters who changed their minds saw more logic in the Republican arguments. If I were a registered Republican, that is what I would argue.

Paranoid rant.

Is that hate from the right? Shocking! I thought that didn’t happen.

Nyet Russian flag influence Russian to vote Putin.

Since when is a flag lapel pin a requirement for anybody? What does it really prove?

Ouch! I have been attacked unfairly! I thought that only happened to Fox News and Friends.

If “old glory” symbolizes the Republicans, what symbolizes the Democrats? Other than the appropriate “JACKASS”? It’s certainly not the American flag, or anything it represents, is it?!! 

In the early ’90s, Texas put a man in jail for burning the flag (disrespectfully). The US Supreme Court said the jail time was unconstitutional. Burning the flag (disrespectfully) is expressing an opinion, and therefore it is protected as free speech. The Republican party, led by George Bush (the first) wanted to amend the Constitution to legally ban that kind of flag burning. 

I do respect the flag. I do not like or respect flag burners. I would like to have a law that says I can punch a flag burner in the face, but I know that is unrealistic. However, I was shocked that anyone would think we need a law that puts a man in jail for burning a flag. I expected the USSR, China, and other such countries to have a law like that because they needed a law like that. I even thought it was insulting to the flag to think for one second that such a law was necessary.

Respect is earned, not legislated. That is why I respect our flag as a symbol of our nation.

I thought then, and I still think now, that all of this American Flag = Republican is cheap politics, but I voted for Bush I to be reelected anyway because I liked the rest of his policies.

Look at my icon for posting. The eagle and the flag are sincere expressions of patriotism, but I take the liberal side in just about every thread. The rest of my postings side with libertarians. Republicans do not own the flag, and liberals do not hate it!

My opinion (because I don’t pretend to speak for all liberals) is that we liberals never challenge conservative patriotism. We only challenge your methods and in some cases your intelligence. We don’t wrap ourselves in the flag, we think beyond it while respecting it every bit as much as you do.

Wrong. Emotional and without basis beyond what extremists tell you.

I’m sure Great_1 was being sarcastic, too.
It is a danger of the posting environment that sarcasm can be mistaken for sincerity.

Are you sure every immigrant would vote liberal? Why is that?

Go get em’!

You had me right up to “my opinion”.

There’s an awful lot of liberal challenges to conservative patriotism, you just have to be willing to see it.

And as far as challenging “our methods” – that’s a bit too vague. As far as intelligence, what happened to your standards?

And what does wrapping or not wrapping yourself in the American flag really tell us about your opinion?

Thinking beyond the flag? Again what does that really supposed to mean?

And as far as respecting it as much as you do, more vagaries that don’t really tell us anything about the liberal position of politics.

This section of your post is mostly rhetorical in nature and does nothing to make your case as described concerning your bit about flag burning.

Quotes from Texas v. Johnson, 1989.  Majority opinion written by Justice Brennan:

“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive and disagreeable.”"To do so we would be forced to consult our own political preferences, and impose them on the citizenry, in the very way that the first Amendment forbids us to do.”"We decline, therefore, to create for the flag an exception to the joust of principles protected by the First Amendment.”"It is the Nation’s resilience, not its rigidity, that Texas sees reflected in the flag–and it is that resilience that we reassert today.”

Question: Can you see “neutral principle” within Justice Brennan’s opinion?

Purveyor

Quotes from Texas v. Johnson, 1989.  Majority opinion written by Justice Brennan:

“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive and disagreeable.”"To do so we would be forced to consult our own political preferences, and impose them on the citizenry, in the very way that the first Amendment forbids us to do.”"We decline, therefore, to create for the flag an exception to the joust of principles protected by the First Amendment.”"It is the Nation’s resilience, not its rigidity, that Texas sees reflected in the flag–and it is that resilience that we reassert today.”

Question: Can you see “neutral principle” within Justice Brennan’s opinion?

Purveyor

“A republican would never be embarrassed to show love and support for this country, same can’t be said for the democrats.”
good. in the last election the Pubs’n'Baggers ran on jobs and the economy.

. . .where’s the jobs?  Where’s the jobs?  WHERE’S THE JOBS?

. . .oh, i forgot. . .first they have to tell everyone how to run their lives,  put people in prison if they disobey, take their money and give it to the rich, let people die because they don’t have their Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid, and let national infrastructure rot while they worship the Holy Fetal Cells. . .

Note:

There is a virtual cornucopia of applicable companion cases that further shed light on Texas V. Johnson:

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942.  Established “the Fighting Words Doctrine.”

Cohen v. California, 1971.  ”Offensive conduct or speech.”  Cohen was arrested while wearing a jacket that had emblazoned  ”Fuck the Draft” on it.  (Did Cohen’s action fall within Chaplinsky’s “fighting words?”)

Etc., etc.,

I tried to explain this to you the other day:  Con-Law is a house of Bricks, built upon each decision and the Court MUST, refer to past decisions to support the present cases and decisions.

Purveyor 

Furthermore and typically, you proceed to take what you consider the high moral ground by protecting free speech, at the expense of our national symbol.  However, you conveniently forget the plethora, the myriad of symbols, objects and actions that the Left and the ACLU finds distasteful and anachronistic.

Typically, only you and your leftist compatriots know what is, and what isn’t, good for the unwashed masses.

You and your ilk desire a PROHIBITION against CHURCH and State.  Whereas, most American’s would consent to a SEPARATION of Church and State.  Yet YOU call Conservatives presumptuous?  LOL

“Beware when pursuing the monster, lest he become you.”  Nietzsche

Lastly: Where have you been?  In the Hospital nursing your ego?  You and COSMOS had it coming!

“Respect is earned, not legislated.  That is why I respect the flag as a symbol of our nation?”

Sounded good as a platitude(s), however, made little sense.  Benny, I agree with you.  Moreover, I have dealt with this individual (DEVIL) before and he enjoys the the sound of his own voice, sensible or not.

Anyway, I’ve grown weary being nice to the guy and gave him a pile of Con-Law history to cogitate on.  

Purveyor

I’ve been all over the place in Mediaite threads. I even gave YOU kudos earlier today. [I capitalized YOU because YOU capitalized YOU ;-)]

Moral high ground? Definitely the pot calling the kettle black. You try to play king of the hill on that one.
Do I respect “the Flag?” Yes! Do I consider it to be a near-religious icon? No. I am not into Idol Worship.

As for Church and State, I don’t like the atheists who cry and whine about things like a Christmas tree and a manger scene in front of a city hall, or demand that a school not start a graduation ceremony with a benediction. I say shut up and participate or sit quietly and don’t. It is your choice, but don’t mess with my culture on that.

I still insist on saying Merry Christmas on Christmas Day, at least, and in the week before then unless I know I’m talking to someone who would be annoyed because they are of a non-Christian religion. Heck, even the Japanese and Chinese enjoy the party element of Christmas.

As for the more intimate connection of church and state, I support having Chaplains in the military, the prisons, and giving morning prayers in the House (I know they do that) and in the Senate (not sure they do).

This is my logic, using myself as an example: When I am free to go wherever I want and do whatever I want, then attending a religious service is my choice and no government can order me to do it or prevent me from it. But, when the government lawfully has control over me, such as when I was deployed to a war zone or even stuck in basic training, then the government has a responsibility to provide me with spiritual comforts, like a Bible and a Chaplain IF I want that. If I am ever incarcerated for punching you out [ :-) ] I can demand the same access to spiritual support. That is the legal and moral relationship of “church and state” in the US.

I’ve been all over the place in Mediaite threads. I even gave YOU kudos earlier today. [I capitalized YOU because YOU capitalized YOU ;-)]

Moral high ground? Definitely the pot calling the kettle black. You try to play king of the hill on that one.
Do I respect “the Flag?” Yes! Do I consider it to be a near-religious icon? No. I am not into Idol Worship.

As for Church and State, I don’t like the atheists who cry and whine about things like a Christmas tree and a manger scene in front of a city hall, or demand that a school not start a graduation ceremony with a benediction. I say shut up and participate or sit quietly and don’t. It is your choice, but don’t mess with my culture on that.

I still insist on saying Merry Christmas on Christmas Day, at least, and in the week before then unless I know I’m talking to someone who would be annoyed because they are of a non-Christian religion. Heck, even the Japanese and Chinese enjoy the party element of Christmas.

As for the more intimate connection of church and state, I support having Chaplains in the military, the prisons, and giving morning prayers in the House (I know they do that) and in the Senate (not sure they do).

This is my logic, using myself as an example: When I am free to go wherever I want and do whatever I want, then attending a religious service is my choice and no government can order me to do it or prevent me from it. But, when the government lawfully has control over me, such as when I was deployed to a war zone or even stuck in basic training, then the government has a responsibility to provide me with spiritual comforts, like a Bible and a Chaplain IF I want that. If I am ever incarcerated for punching you out [ :-) ] I can demand the same access to spiritual support. That is the legal and moral relationship of “church and state” in the US.

I’ve been all over the place in Mediaite threads. I even gave YOU kudos earlier today. [I capitalized YOU because YOU capitalized YOU ;-)]

Moral high ground? Definitely the pot calling the kettle black. You try to play king of the hill on that one.
Do I respect “the Flag?” Yes! Do I consider it to be a near-religious icon? No. I am not into Idol Worship.

As for Church and State, I don’t like the atheists who cry and whine about things like a Christmas tree and a manger scene in front of a city hall, or demand that a school not start a graduation ceremony with a benediction. I say shut up and participate or sit quietly and don’t. It is your choice, but don’t mess with my culture on that.

I still insist on saying Merry Christmas on Christmas Day, at least, and in the week before then unless I know I’m talking to someone who would be annoyed because they are of a non-Christian religion. Heck, even the Japanese and Chinese enjoy the party element of Christmas.

As for the more intimate connection of church and state, I support having Chaplains in the military, the prisons, and giving morning prayers in the House (I know they do that) and in the Senate (not sure they do).

This is my logic, using myself as an example: When I am free to go wherever I want and do whatever I want, then attending a religious service is my choice and no government can order me to do it or prevent me from it. But, when the government lawfully has control over me, such as when I was deployed to a war zone or even stuck in basic training, then the government has a responsibility to provide me with spiritual comforts, like a Bible and a Chaplain IF I want that. If I am ever incarcerated for punching you out [ :-) ] I can demand the same access to spiritual support. That is the legal and moral relationship of “church and state” in the US.

The devil (with his spawn) is in the details. The specific act of “desecrating a flag” is as offensive to me as it is to you, believe that or not, but “Johnson’s expression of dissatisfaction with the Federal Government’s
policies also does not fall within the class of “fighting words” likely
to be seen as a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange
fisticuffs.” Furthermore, “The Government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an
idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable,
even where our flag is involved. Nor may a State foster its own view of
the flag by prohibiting expressive conduct relating to it, since the
Government may not permit designated symbols to be used to communicate a
limited set of messages. Moreover, this Court will not create an
exception to these principles protected by the First Amendment for the American flag alone. Pp. 410-422. of Texas v. Johnson, US Supreme Court.

We are in agreement. I found the same quotes and reasoning.

However, I think you are being less than completely honest when you leave out the words that I place in bold 

“The Government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an
idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable,
even where our flag is involved.

Furthermore

No one was physically injured or threatened with injury, although
several witnesses were seriously offended by the flag burning. Johnson
was convicted of desecration of a venerated object in violation of a
Texas statute, and a state court of appeals affirmed. However, the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the State,
consistent with the First Amendment, could not punish Johnson for burning the flag in these circumstances.

Thus, the final quote you used

“It is the Nation’s resilience, not its rigidity, that Texas sees
reflected in the flag–and it is that resilience that we reassert
today.”

Supports the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision, not the original conviction of Johnson.

All of this merely summarizes my initial statement. Our nation is too resilient to be damaged by the desecration of one of its symbols by one man or 100 men, and a physical attack on a symbol is nothing more than an expression of discontent and frustration.

Did the US Supreme Court (and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals display neutrailty? Yes. Did you? No. You picked and chose partial quotes to advance your own cause.

The defense (of my previous statement) rests.

I have seen many a liberal challenge the honesty of conservatives, but none that come anywhere near to stating that conservatives were unpatriotic. Is it not possible that patriotism or its application can be misguided? As for arguments about methods, well that refers to arguments over how to fix things. As to intelligence, I was admitting that both sides can and do resort to phrases like “moron” and “idiot.” I am often tempted to do that, myself, and sometimes I do slip up.

Schmeg, I will not mind one bit if you do give up.

You appear to have had a revelation.  I am pleased.  You could have had this same “epiphany,” back when we were discussing the 16th Amendment, “equal protection,” and LaFollette.  I understand though, you persevered by finding a Legal topic that, for you, was a bit more obvious,(?) hence, easier to digest, then poof!  I have had similar experiences, what ever works!  LOL

Sometimes, the reasoning contained in Supreme Court decisions is inspiring, other times, pathetic and biased. Ergo, those cases that offend one’s sensibilities, makes one wonder how that Justice got there in first place?  Ouch!  (A whole other subject, indeed)

Neutral Principle, can be the formula that keeps Constitutional adjudication, (Statutory Law and personal behavior) consistent and not burdened by moral caprice or issues?  Respectfully, I ask you to consider whether, or not, Neutral principle, (maybe not by name, but…) was evident in the reasoning of Justice Brennan in the “Texas” case?  So too, in the other cases you have recently read.  Did Brennan and the majority use more reason than emotion?  Or, did those decisions contain moral inclination as opposed to sound legal reasoning?

(What about burning a cross on public or private property?  Did “Texas” establish a principle and how expansive was/is that principle?  If one can burn a flag, can one burn a cross?)

Then, if you would, re-consider my analogy of Hill v Colorado and the “bubble of protection.”  Did Judge St John consider the principles she was establishing by her decision?

What role did or could neutral principle play in those cases?

Purveyor of Rhetoric

“Ricci v. Destefano.”  A very recent, New Haven Connecticut case whereby a group of white Firefighters sought relief in the US Supreme Court, for what amounted to “reverse discrimination.”  

I am sure you are well aware of America’s attempt to alleviate/eliminate discrimination in our Nation?  Quotas, affirmative action, Head Start. point padding on various tests, etc.

‘To use discrimination to attempt to eliminate discrimination, only results in the perpetuation of discrimination.”

Purveyor, 1993

Are/is there “Neutral Principle” at work in the “Ricci” decision, and in what way(s)?

Also, I referred to in my Post, earlier this morning, about the composition of the Court.  Justice Sotomayor, I believe, recused herself from the “Ricci” case.  What kind of effect did that have on the outcome.  How would Neutral Principle have been effected had she not recused herself?  (Sotomayor sees Neutral Principle as the “Devil’s Spawn.”  LOL–meant to be funny, no offence)

Furthermore, Elena Kagen, who was recently appointed to the Court, shares Sotomayor’s views, ergo, they adjudicate by emotional inclination, first.  Hence, they fit their reasoning, to the desired out come.

Choosing competent Supreme Court Justices should not be that difficult:  Simply look for Neutral Principle and reason. If their decision’s satisfy moral inclination, all the better.  But, the Law must predominate or is rendered capricious and ineffective

Purveyor of Rhetoric

I’ve noticed you spend much time in “the wrong place.”  LOL

No one (who is sane) would claim that Affirmative Action is neutral.

My liberal side wants to support Affirmative Action, but my practical side says it is dangerous social engineering with certainty of backfiring, regardless of its “fairness.” One observed backfire was that people who did not need its “extra points” and did not use them did not get the respect they deserved. 

The other, and expected, backfire is so obvious it is barely worth mentioning. It is unfair to those who do not “qualify” for it. Legalized racism, no matter what its intent, only continues the problem of racism.

That is Neutral Principle!

There are judges like Sotomayor who approve of affirmative action, yet, now she sits on the Supreme Court. Wouldn’t you rather have a judge who uses reason, equal protection and neutral principle sitting on the bench?
NP is a process by which people, Politicians and Judges can use, should use to work their way through issues. Of course we all have our predilections, but, if a Judge leaves his predispostions on the coat rack, so to speak, and takes on a case based on equal protection, neutral principle and of course, the Constitution, then there will be a consistent formula instead of the hodge podge of moral caprice or inclination.
Think back to our debate on the 16th amendment. Such granted Congress the power to collect an income tax. The Government decided on a “progressive” tax. What would neutral principle say about such? NP warns us that no matter what, the principle/ Law we fashion will have aberrations that we did not anticipate. (like in Hill v.Colorado and the bubble of protection) Hence, examine the conflict born of the “progressive tax.” The complexity alone, coupled with the need for an Internal Revenue Service, special courts, tax cheats, etc… To Mr. LaFollette, the progressive Tax “Principle,” sounded good at the time though, didn’t it? LOL However, in practice, the progressive tax has been a headache.
Now we have tax reformers that urging NOT the repeal of the 16th Amendment, just a difference in collection? By applying NP we might end up with a better system?
NP can’t promise perfection, but the thought process gives us consistency. I firmly see NP in the Declaration and the Constitution. There was not yet a label or phrase, but the first amendment is pure neutral principle. So too is most of the Constitution.

Can’t we just call it reverse racism and not keep walking on eggshells?