Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Tea party has Tantrum, sues over sign ban on bridge overpass

For years signs have been banned on pedestrian overpasses to prevent driver distractions and possible abusive free placement of advertising on public property.

But these and other reasons don't amount to a hill of beans to low information tea party voters hell bent on impeaching Obama for...who knows what.
jsonline: Two La Crosse men have sued the Town of Campbell over its 2013 ordinance banning signs and other displays from a pedestrian bridge over Interstate 90, and from an area 100 feet around the bridge. The plaintiffs contend that the bridge is like a sidewalk, a traditional public forum, and that town officials tried to ban signs only after tea party activists hung banners urging passing motorists to impeach President Barack Obama.
Yup, instead of getting special treatment, tea party loons are always getting picked on. And since they haven’t caused an accident with their distractingly stupid signs...yet:
According to their lawsuit Greg Luce and Nicholas Newman had been demonstrating along the pedestrian bridge from August to October without incident, or any traffic accidents … In early October, the town passed an ordinance banning signs, flags, banners and such from the bridge, citing safety concerns. The plaintiffs contend the ban was in response to local news media coverage of the impeachment message.
And what a serious message too. Never one to act like adults, these losers decided to act like bratty children. Come to think of it, didn't conservatives bash Walker protesters for their signs and civil disobedience...but that was different? 
So on Oct. 24, Luce and fellow demonstrators came to the bridge wearing T-shirts that spelled out IMPEACH on one side, and OBAMA on the other. They were told by Campbell police to leave the overpass, and they did. On Oct. 27, Newman stood on the overpass with an American flag "to express his pride for his country and the ideals on which it was founded" when he was ticketed for violating the new ordinance, the suit states.

Brent Smith, a La Crosse attorney who represents the town, said the point of the ban was to prevent accidents. Smith said a similar restriction was adopted in Madison several years ago that was subjected to a similar challenge but upheld by a federal appellate court.
I just loved the reason given for defending these teabillies:
Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center "defends and promotes America's Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values."
Is anybody still buying this crap?


  1. For who knows what?

    Here's a list of 12 to get you started since you're too lazy to think for yourself...

  2. Ah, old disproved talking points, meaningless stuff. Please don't waste my time like this. If you had something new and more debatable, fine. Break out of the bubble.