Creative jurisprudence 101: 'viewpoint discrimination' (Really? Seriously?)

Latest Polls (view all)

Under the cover of Covid, and now in the shadow of the infamous Election Irregularities of that fated 2020 presidential election, with current emerging alleged election fraud in Nevada and Pennsylvania inconveniently slipping into the public discourse, there is proved a colluded ongoing Election Interference in the nomination of the Republican candidate, the likes of which has never occurred in our Constitutional Republic's history, albeit, the question remains: Do you support the plain-sight Election Interference of the Democratic Socialist party, employing its minions in their Propagandistic Media, and their Two Tiered Justice System?

98.13% No, I do not support Election Interference; I am a patriot unto our Constitution.

0.93% Yes, I do support Election Interference; the alternative, Donald Trump, to this mentally diminished president is far worse.

0.93% "What, me worry" if elections are rigged?

Click Here to Vote
107 Vote(s)

View all Polls

Creative jurisprudence 101: 'viewpoint discrimination' (Really? Seriously?)

Published: Monday, December 10th, 2012 @ 11:15 pm
By: Brant Clifton ( More Entries )

Login to Send a Private Message to Brant Clifton

    Publisher's note: Brant Clifton makes an astute summation in his "bare knuckles" Conservative online publication known as The Daily Haymaker.

    Since the mid-20th century, politicians have done a *GREAT* job of politicizing the American judiciary at all of its levels. We get a lot more ideology-based creative jurisprudence -- i.e., a nationwide "right to abortion" based on the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibition on unlawful search and seizure -- than neutral, unbiased evaluation of legislation based on the actual words in our founding documents.

    U.S. Judge James Fox in North Carolina has waved his magic gavel, and lowered the bar even further, in finding "viewpoint discrimination'' in North Carolina's issuance of a "Choose Life" automobile license tag. Apparently, hizzonner believes the special license plate unfairly shoves the pro-life political position down the throats of North Carolina drivers. (Never mind that the plates aren't issued to all drivers. Never mind that you have to specifically request one AND pay extra.)

    That's some interesting legal spin that can open up a real can of worms. DMV offers special plates for UNC and NC State. I am a North Carolina native, and current resident, who graduated from a private, out-of-state university. I can't get a North Carolina license plate celebrating my alma mater or its athletic teams. But my fellow residents who attended NCSU or UNC can get one that celebrates theirs. North Carolina is referred to as "The Tar Heel state" and its residents are referred to as Tar Heels. Isn't that discriminatory toward state residents who are fans and alumni of Duke, Wake Forest, and NCSU -- among others?

    What about elections? If I back a candidate or an issue that does not win at the ballot box, my viewpoint has been discriminated against.

    What about ObamaCare? I believe -- like so many others do -- that this it is an abomination and the biggest threat to our national security since The Cold War. Yet, Barry Obama and his cronies on the left are shoving it down my throat and the throats of so many other hard-working, taxpaying, law-abiding business owners. What about my viewpoint? I feel discriminated against. Help me, Judge Fox.

Go Back