BigDave wrote:I have no idea if the SCV will challenge McAwful's decision here or will just go with it, but I'm not convinced that the reasoning would apply.
Virginia's law singles out the Sons of Confederate Veterans and says that they, by name, are not allowed to incorporate any logo into their plate:
https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp50 ... 6.2-746.22
If the Sons of Confederate Veterans had a picture of a blue duck in their logo, they would not be allowed to use it. If their logo was a rainbow-colored triangle, they would not be allowed to use it.
Does the Texas law work that way or does it empower a commission to determine whether the plate is okay and that commission said no you can't have a confederate flag?
If the Texas ruling was based on a commission, rather than the law spelling out the organization by name, then the Supreme Court ruling has nothing whatsoever to do with the Virginia case.
I'm curious if any of the lawyers here have considered what I wrote.
The Texas process has a commission whose job it is to accept or reject plates. (That commission rejected the confederate plate.)
Virginia's law says that the Sons of Confederate Veterans, by name, cannot create a plate that has their organization's logo on it.
If a college fraternity in Virginia incorporated the confederate flag into their logo and met the other requirements for a plate (enough signatures, etc), then they would be issued the plate.
Only the Sons of Confederate Veterans are excluded from incorporating ANY logo on the plate. If they changed their logo to be a blue duck, they could not incorporate it.
Can any thinking person please explain how the ruling from the court is at all applicable? The governor is willfully disregarding a court order.