Today in Supreme Court History: March 21, 1989

3/21/1989: Texas v. Johnson is argued.

 

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

I never realized that the officer WITNESSED Johnson stealing the flag -- why didn't they prosecute him for that?!? Theft is theft.

But flagburning is like hate speech -- ignore it and it will go away -- try to prohibit it and you'll get a lot more of it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Another reminder of how GHW Bush was such a shallow, cheap politician. His 1988 campaign was: 1) flag burning amendment 2) compulsory Pledge of Allegiance. That's it. That was his platform. Dukakis was opposed to both. The Duke was right, of course.

"Men want to be President because they want to do something. Boys, because they want to be something."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Face it, Bush '41' was Reagan's third term, much like our current Thief in Chief is Obama's third term.

As to Dukakis, the last two years of his term as MA Governor give an indication of just how much of a bullet the nation dodged in not electing him. Dukakis was great at dealing with ONE THING -- he did fairly well with ONE THING but in ignoring everything else, everything else went into the toilet. I'll never forget the police cars with hoods open because they were overheating -- while they'd had plenty of money in the mid 1980s to buy new ones, no one had gotten around to doing it...

Stuff like that.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Governor is better training for President than the many non-jobs Bush had had.

[ThePublius]

Like Vice President?
Like Director of the C.I.A.?
Like congressman?
Like Ambassador to the U.N.?
Like oil company president and founder?
Like WWII fighter pilot?

Those non-jobs?

[Krychek_2]

I wouldn't say that any of those are non-jobs, but I would say that most of the ones on that list aren't necessarily good training for the presidency. The president's job is to be CEO of the United States, for which executive experience is nice to have. A governor's experience is therefore closer to being on-point than being a fighter pilot or a congressman.

With that caveat, I will agree that Bush Pere had an impressive resume.

[ThePublius]

Having lived in Massachusetts at the time and suffered through Dukakis' executive experience, I would say he demonstrated incompetence in that role, disqualifying himself.

That said, I'm not a fan of Bush, either.

[ThePublius]

Regarding executive experience, you neglected the fact that Bush started and ran a successful oil company.

[Krychek_2]

I didn't say that *nothing* on your list was executive experience; I simply pointed out some that weren't.

And of course, not everyone who's had an executive job did well at it; there are good executives and bad executives. I always thought Dukakis had adequate executive skills, though he was not my first choice in 1988. I voted for him over Bush, though, because I agreed with him on more issues than I did Bush.

[Dan Schiavetta]

As Governor of Massachusetts he was courageous, conscientious, and fiscally responsible. His last two years were not successful but that was because of a recession that was gripping the whole region. As someone put it, as he took that "long walk" down the Capitol steps (this was someone who usually opposed him), "this state got a good ride from Michael Dukakis". He was all substance, very little show.

I remember in one "State of the State" address he said that, because of lack of federal aid and in-state budget cuts that he opposed, "we will have somewhat fewer Bay State residents that otherwise".

[Dan Schiavetta]

He left no mark as Vice President, CIA Director, Congressman, U.N. Ambassador, oil company president, or (you left this out) Chairman of the Republican National Committee (during the Nixon era). In fact he always could be counted on to look the other way.

[DaivdBehar]

The Supreme Court is out of control. It needs to be cancelled by impeaching all them. Replace them with members of the jury pool, or wine besotted bums puking in the streets, for an upgrade in common sense, and in clarity of decision writing.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

If it were today I'd bet this case comes out 9-0 in favor of Johnson.

The conservatives have become more originalist, which probably dictates this case, and they have embraced a more expansive free speech doctrine that certainly dictates the outcome of this case.

Its actually kinda weird to think that 30 years ago this was actually a major issue.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Look at the dissenters in that case -- more likely to align with today's "originalists". And those in the majority, less likely.