Supreme Court opinion for 5/2/22 (Shurtleff v Boston)

Politics
1

Only opinion for today (5/2/22) is Shurtleff v Boston.

BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS, J., joined.

All 9 Justices concurred in the underlying judgement, but the 3 Justices not joining the main opinion would have taken a different route on getting to the judgement.

The underlying judgement is pretty much a no â– â– â– â– â– â– â–  brainer. :smile: That is why it got an easy 9 to 0 zero vote at the free speech friendly Supreme Court and should have gotten that judgement at both the District Court and Court of Appeals.

If you are allowing pride flags and every other flag that is brought forward, you cannot exclude a Christian flag. As the opinion mentions, Boston had never denied a flag request until Shurtleff’s.

The underlying Judgement is unquestionable correct.

Gorsuch’s concurrence regarding Lemon is unquestionably correct. The Supreme Court needs to flush Lemon down the toilet once and for all.

I also join with Alito’s concurrence, framing this as government speech versus government’s regulation of private speech.

While the majority reached the right result, it should have gone farther to ensure this type of bull ■■■■ doesn’t happen again.

The Supreme Court’s next opinion day will be Monday, May 16.

4 Likes
2

Guaranteed: progs will now demand that their satanic flag be flown.

3

If they can’t exclude a Christian flag, why should a Satanic flag be excluded?

4

QED

So predictable

5

And right…

6

And Boston can solve that issue real easy.

Simply end ANY outside flags and fly ONLY the Boston City Flag from the third flag pole year round.

But once you provide a public forum for outside groups, that forum must be open to ALL COMERS.

Close the forum and you end the problem.

1 Like
7

i find the whole idea of “government speech” a far reach. government does not have rights, it has authorities.

1 Like
8

:+1: :point_up:

And limits.

9

Very true.

If only such a move would be limited to the flagpole though.

The same principle applies to the public square, to public buildings (owned/run/overseen by government), to public schools.

And of course, this battle is already long-running in those arenas. Especially at Christmastime.

We’re never going to escape this political football.

10

I agree.

Bostonians fly Italian and Irish flags. They fly pride flags—even one pride flag with two female symbols.

If the door is open for one group to fly a flag, others should not be excluded—Christian or whomever.

The irony of this post is that, having known my share of men on the taxi pool, every single one operating out of Logan Airport swears they’ve actually transported passengers arriving from Ireland in particular—and not a single one had a single kind word to say about so called “Boston Irish”. They absolutely detested them.

And yet these individuals fly the flag and even tattoo it on their person. Christians should either have the same freedom, or everyone loses it and only US, Commonwealth and city flags fly.

11

That was actually a very interesting read.

12

Pretty easy IMHO. Either all are allowed, nor none are allowed.

Why is it so hard to understand, when it’s been settled law for like decades IIRC?