GOP questions ‘two-month gap’ in Kagan’s health care involvement

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jackson, Dec 8, 2011.

  1. Jackson
    Offline

    Jackson Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    19,636
    Thanks Received:
    4,872
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +12,677
    GOP questions ‘two-month gap’ in Kagan’s health care involvement

    GOP questions 'two-month gap' in Kagan's health care involvement - Washington Times
     
  2. Conservative
    Offline

    Conservative Type 40

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    17,082
    Thanks Received:
    2,026
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Ratings:
    +2,030
    open and transparent my left nut.

    from the OP article...

    Carney didbn't even answer the fucking question!

    The Times wasn't asking whether or not Kagan was properly vetted by Congress or the administration to become a Supreme Court justice... it asked about Obama supporting full disclosure of all relevant information about Kagan during the missing 2 months.
     
  3. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,763
    Thanks Received:
    15,641
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,936
    Let's not get too excited here...
    1."Jay Carney said Congress already has fully vetted Justice Kagan’s views..."

    Carney is correct....we had our chance.

    2. Justice are bound by no requirement to recuse themselves for any reason...

    3. Here's where I got excited:

    ""In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

    "I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

    In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.

    That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

    Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

    If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
    Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut? « The Daley Gator

    This is a Justice of the Supreme Court.
    Too late to ever count on her for justice.
     
  4. washamericom
    Offline

    washamericom Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2010
    Messages:
    9,382
    Thanks Received:
    735
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,700

Share This Page