ipl-logo

Texas Vs. Johnson Majority Opinion By Barbara Jordan And Jim Wright

813 Words4 Pages

Sarah Dessen used to say that “Accepting all the good and bad about someone is a great thing to aspire to. The hard part is actually doing it. (Dessen, 2013)” Similarly, Barbara Jordan, a leader of the Civil Rights Movement, said “We, as human beings, must be willing to accept people who are different from ourselves. (Jordan, 2016, 45)” Both quotations mean that when people face conflicts or have differences, they should be willing to understand the others’ perspective rather than just ignoring or refuting it. However, not all people agree with these ideas. For instance, Texas vs. Johnson Majority Opinion and Jim Wright’s letter embrace the central idea of the Jordan’s quotation, while Tomi Lahren DESTROYS Colin Kaepernick refutes it. To begin with, Texas vs. Johnson Majority Opinion basically agrees with Jordan. In 1989, Gregory Lee Johnson, in Texas, burned the American flag as a way of protesting the new policies by President Ronald Reagan. Texas’ government pushed for his punishment, but Johnson appealed against the decision (Beers et. al, 2016, 15). Finally, Supreme Court’s …show more content…

Johnson Majority Opinion and Jim Wright’s letter concur with the concept of Jordan’s quotation, Tomi Lahren DESTROYS Colin Kaepernick rebuts it. Both Texas vs. Johnson Majority Opinion and Jim Wright’s letter have strong supporting ideas, which are First Amendment and the life lesson that the best way to make one to respect is show respect to that one first. However, Tomi Lahren DESTROYS Colin Kaepernick provides little to no evidence in comparison to the other two. She accuses him of not paying tribute to the army, a statement Kaepernick more than once said in his interview. Frankly, Lahren does not make fair arguments other than he is a disgrace, which does not contribute to the reason why Kaepernick should not be accepted. All in all, it seems people generally live by Jordan’s thoughts, and those who aren’t do not have a good reason to refute

Open Document