file photo by Boyd Loving
Matt Rogers blew it when advising the Village Council regarding the grave legal implications of approving third party displays on municipal property based on the content of the message that third party is trying to convey. More specifically, the Village Council deliberately voted to approve the display of the six-color flag/banner on municipal property because the five voting councilmembers personally supported so-called “gay pride” or “gay rights.”
.
Acccording to black letter federal Constitutional law, this is a huge no-no. (For a concept to be considered black letter U.S. Constitutional law, the related issues will typically have been long since been resolved by one or more precedential decisions by the federal Supreme Court such that they are no longer seriously being questioned by the legal community.) This remains true, despite the recent overwhelming onslaught on our secular and religious institutions, led by former president Obama, intended to promote sodomy as a valid lifestyle choice, and, in true Alinskyite fashion, condemn detractors, however well-meaning, to cruel social isolation.
.
Village Attorney Matt Rogers had plenty of time to consider the relevant issues, and was paid plenty of money to support the legal work that might be necessary to formally convey to the Village Council the foolishness of imagining that it is free to consider the merits of the social or political message being conveyed in the process of deciding whether or not to allow a proposed third party display to be erected on municipal property. It is not now, nor has it ever been free to do so, and for his part, Mr. Rogers should know this fact like the back of his hand.
.
In light of the above-described professional failure, and others in the past, such as the proposed (unconstitutional) law intended to ban signs bearing political messages on signs erected on the property of fee simple residences outside of election seasons, the Village Council at its meeting tonight should quietly decline to appoint Matt Rogers to another year as the Ridgewood’s Municipal Attorney.
The only “onslaught” I see here is on the English language with your excessive use of commas. And who uses outdated and puritanical terms such as “sodomy” any more?
Mr. Rogers is a fine attorney and we are lucky to have him on staff.
I think Mr Rogers has done a fine job and should be retained
So you don’t like the rainbow flag. Too bad. We can’t fire people every time you disagree with them.
Matt is a great lawyer and a wonderful person. Lucky to have him.
I don’t like him at all and have felt that way for many years pre-flag.
It doesn’t matter if you like him or agree with him.
He is being reappointed because he is good at what he does.
The post explains how he has failed us on U.S. Constitutional law. So he’s pretty poor at what he does when it comes to that area of law.