Judge: “Choose Life” Out in North Carolina

By Selwyn Duke

Providing another example of why judicial review needs to be
reviewed is U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox, who just ruled that North
Carolina may not offer its “Choose Life” license plates. And wait till you hear
his reasoning (if you can call it that). Writes MyFox8.com:

A federal judge has ruled it is unconstitutional
for North Carolina to issue pro-life license plates unless the state offers
similar plates supporting abortion rights.

[…]Judge Fox concluded, “The
State’s offering of a Choose Life license plate in the absence of a pro-choice
plate constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First
Amendment.”

Allow me to translate: “I, Caesarean Judge, don’t like pro-life
messages. So I’m going to rule against the choose-life plate — because I can.”

Question: where in
the Constitution is it forbidden for states — or the feds, for that matter — to
engage in “viewpoint discrimination”? The Founding Fathers included no such
provision, and for good reason.

They were neither on mind-altering medication nor were
insane.

The fact is that the very business of governing involves
“viewpoint discrimination.” After all, the state must enact laws. And a law, by
definition, is the imposition of a viewpoint.

As an example, the battle over Obamacare involved many
viewpoints, two of which were “The federal government has no right to force
citizens to purchase a product or service” and “The federal government does
have a right to force citizens to purchase a product or service.” And the feds
not only discriminated between those two viewpoints, they decided to impose one
at the end of a gun.

So here is what’s implicit in Judge Fox’s reasoning: if the
government’s viewpoint discrimination involves the forcible imposition of the
viewpoint on others, it’s acceptable. But if the government is simply offering
a vehicle through which citizens can voluntarily display a viewpoint, it’s not.

Another example of government viewpoint discrimination is
public-service announcements. For instance, when the government uses tax money
to promote the notion that our strength lies in our diversity, it has
discriminated against the viewpoint that our strength certainly does not lie
there.

Another issue here is hinted at by Chris Brook, legal
director of the organization that filed the lawsuit against the pro-life
plates, the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation.
He rendered the opinion, writes MyFox8.com, that “the government cannot create
an avenue to express one side of a political issue while denying an equal
opportunity to citizens with an opposing view.” He perhaps was very clever to
use the word “an” as opposed to “the,” as issues can suggest far more than just
two viewpoints.

Just consider the matter at hand. The ACLU would find it
acceptable if NC offered an opposing message such as the euphemistic “Respect
Reproductive Freedom,” but this would still leave great discrimination. What of
the viewpoints, “Abortion Controls the Population,” “Abortionists Should be
Aborted,” “Abortion is a Good,” and “Abortion is Racism” (an inordinate
percentage of aborted babies are black)? Sure, these are fringe opinions, but
so what? It is now our position that a viewpoint may suffer discrimination if
it’s held only by a minority?

Of course, that is our position, as illustrated with the
examples of laws and public-service announcements. Many (not all) reflect
popular will that overrode opposing viewpoints whose embrace would have led to
an opposing law or no legislation at all. This is called democracy.

The ACLU’s Brook also called Fox’s ruling a victory for
“free speech rights.” This is nonsense as well, much like Sandra Fluke’s
conflation of access to contraception with taxpayer financing of it. Citizens
may display any kind of pro-abortion bumper sticker they wish on their
vehicles. The government may not suppress a viewpoint, but this doesn’t mean
that the government has to advocate for it equally.

Yet don’t be surprised at the conclusions drawn by Fox and
Brooks. It is the reasoning of the unreasonable, the actions of those who take
pride in mastering duplicitous law-craft and do what they do because they can.
And I would respond in kind. If I controlled the NC government, I’d tell the
judge that we will stop issuing abortion-related license plates altogether.
Instead, we’ll offer one with an anti-suicide message.

It just so happens that it will also bear the words “Choose
Life.”

And will have the exact same design as the pro-life plates.

You don’t expect us to spend money redesigning a plate given
today’s budget crunches and all, do you?

And there’ll be no “viewpoint discrimination.” We’ll also
offer a pro-suicide plate reading “Choose Death.” Fair is fair.

On the other hand, you could just resurrect the spirit of
Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson and tell Judge Fox that you’ve decided not
to play, that judicial review has been reviewed and found wanting. I would say,
you have made your ruling, judge. Now let’s see you enforce it.

                                
Contact Selwyn Duke or follow him on Twitter

                                   © 2012 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved

2012-12-17 13:24:48

Source: http://selwynduke.typepad.com/selwyndukecom/2012/12/judge-choose-life-out-in-north-carolina.html