Categories

May 22

“Real” Potential Diversity On The Supreme Court

According to liberals, these women could be empathetic to the causes and rights of all the women across America.
Wrong!
And what about the men of this country?


More:

Print This Post Print This Post
May 18

Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan Is A Lightweight Who Poses A Clear Threat To Our First Amendment Rights

Another Obama nominee for the Supreme Court … and another pernicious threat to our Constitutional rights. Even though Elena Kagan’s record is almost nonexistent, she has revealed a willingness if not propensity to restrict our First Amendment rights. If nothing else, that should be more than enough to deep six her being confirmed.

Everything else about her pales in comparison including no judicial experience, few cases argued, a long standing far left agenda, and unwavering support for socialism and big government.

She is a political appointee who hasn’t even reached the level of a judicial lightweight, never mind, having the wherewithal to become a Supreme Court justice.

We're Speechless
Investors Business Daily 05/12/2010

Supreme Court: Elena Kagan's thin paper trail was supposed to be an asset. But the confirmation of Obama's nominee may focus on one position it's clear she holds: that banning political speech can be constitutional.

'The government's answer has changed." That was how Solicitor General Kagan began her frantic damage control during a second round of oral arguments last September in the Citizens United case, which Kagan and the U.S. government ultimately lost and the First Amendment won.

Her deputy, Malcolm Stewart, in March of last year said the government had constitutional powers extending to banning books to limit corporate political influence.

As a result, the justices ordered a second round of arguments last fall to get into broader free speech questions.
For that, Kagan stepped into the fray herself, telling the justices that the government had reconsidered its position and conceding that banning books would elicit a strong court challenge.

So Chief Justice John Roberts asked her, "If you say that you are not going to apply it to a book, what about a pamphlet?"

"I think a pamphlet would be different," Kagan responded. "A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering," and so the government could restrict such political speech.

Who you are should determine how much you can say — that is the admitted philosophy held by this high-court nominee.
According to the president, alluding to Kagan's role in the Citizens United case as he announced her as his Supreme Court choice on Monday, "powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens."

But who decides who those powerful interests are and how much they can say?

The most powerful interest of all does: the government.

In a 1996 University of Chicago Law School Journal article titled "Private Speech, Public Purpose: the Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," which gets raves from left-leaning legal academics, Kagan contended that "the application of First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

If the motive is compelling enough, in other words, the government can regulate speech in the name of the public good.
The view that "the government may never subject particular ideas to disadvantage" is mistaken, Kagan wrote. "The government indeed may do so, if acting upon neutral, harm-based reasons."

Again, it is the government that decides if, say, a talk radio host or Tea Partyer is doing "harm" by engaging in political speech that allegedly incites some wacko to violence.

Columnist Jacob Sullum hit the bull's-eye on this when he wrote:

"While the government may constitutionally restrict speech based on 'neutrally conceived harms,' Kagan says, it may not restrict speech based on 'hostility toward ideas.'But as she herself more or less acknowledges, this distinction ultimately collapses because people are hostile to ideas they consider harmful."

In last month's 8-to-1 U.S. v. Stevens court decision regarding depictions of animal cruelty, Kagan contended that First Amendment protection "depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs," a claim Roberts called "startling and dangerous" in ruling against Kagan.

At only 50 years of age, Elena Kagan, a "speech redistributionist," could be on the high court for three decades.

Her upcoming confirmation hearings could be a First Amendment battle royal.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=533863

More:

Print This Post Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed Follow Us on Twitter
To Contact Members of Congress To Contact Media News Editors Government Run Health Care

Archives