Kagan: A Threat to Freedom of Speech?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by boedicca, May 12, 2010.

  1. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    41,844
    Thanks Received:
    12,789
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +22,876
    Kagan's thin record does yield some things which, when considered in the context of Obama's negative attitude towards the alternative media, should cause concerns regarding her interpretation of the First Amendment.

    Most notably, she was the second Solicitor to appear before the SCOTUS in the Citizens United case. Her predecessor had admitted before the court that the law could prevent books from being published during an election cycle; Kagan narrowed the definition, but still supported bans on Free Speech.

    Solicitor General Elena Kagan, nominated Monday to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama, told that court in September that Congress could constitutionally prohibit corporations from engaging in political speech such as publishing pamphlets that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.

    CNSNews.com - Chief Justice Roberts: Kagan Asked Court to 'Embrace Theory of First Amendment That Would Allow Censorship Not Only of Radio and Television Broadcasts, But Pamphlets and Posters'

    In another case, she wrote:

    "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection," she wrote, "depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

    Which was thwarted by the court:

    Writing for the 8-to-1 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts called this claim "startling and dangerous," adding: "The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it."

    The Bounds of Silence - Reason Magazine


    Kagan appears to be the type of lawyer who looks for the loopholes in The Constitution which enable the expansion of Government Power. For this reason alone, she should not be appointed to the court. Her major "qualification" is a shared agenda with Obama for Big Government.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    Do you understand what it means to be a lawyer?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    41,844
    Thanks Received:
    12,789
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +22,876
    Do you understand what it means to be a Supreme Court Justice?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. PatekPhilippe
    Offline

    PatekPhilippe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    8,171
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sasebo Japan
    Ratings:
    +1,200
    Perhaps not a threat to free speech so much as a threat to basic freedoms of U.S. citizens...she favors locking up people, be they U.S. citizens or not, indefinitely without trial...all they have to is be classified as an "enemy combatant".
     
  5. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    Do you people really NOT understand what it means to defend a case as a lawyer?
     
  6. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    41,844
    Thanks Received:
    12,789
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +22,876
    Indeed, her statism likely extends to all freedoms. But I find her attitude that free speech's values must be weighed against "societal costs" most troubling. Who decided what speech has value and what the societal costs are? This is a gross overreach of government power, recognized by 8 out of 9 SC Justices. She does not deserve to be their peer.
     
  7. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    41,844
    Thanks Received:
    12,789
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +22,876
    Wow;

    “If there is an ‘overabundance’ of an idea in the absence of direct governmental action -- which there well might be when compared with some ideal state of public debate -- then action disfavoring that idea might ‘un-skew,’ rather than skew, public discourse,” Kagan wrote.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/65720


    In the absence of Direct Government Action there might be an Overabundance of An Idea?

    What this means: if The People have an opinion that the Government has overreached and oppose it, the Government may take direction action to squash that idea and counter balance it with support for the government overreach.

    No wonder Obama nominated her.
     
  8. LibocalypseNow
    Offline

    LibocalypseNow Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    12,337
    Thanks Received:
    1,356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,357
    This woman is your classic Socialist/Progressive. She is anything but a Free Speech advocate. I'm actually pretty shocked this President would nominate her. If you consider yourself a good Liberal,you cannot possibly support this nominee. Her record on Free Speech is pretty dismal. This should bother all Americans. Both Democrats and Republicans should vote Nay on this nominee. Unfortunately as usual,it always comes down to that 'D' vs. 'R' thing so don't expect many to do the right thing. As usual it will be a Party-Line vote. That's very sad because this woman should not be a member of our Supreme Court.
     
  9. PatekPhilippe
    Offline

    PatekPhilippe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    8,171
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sasebo Japan
    Ratings:
    +1,200
    Obama has the Nation so divided right now that he will lead his own party right off a cliff and not even think twice about it.
     
  10. LibocalypseNow
    Offline

    LibocalypseNow Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    12,337
    Thanks Received:
    1,356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,357
    It really is so sad seeing what our nation is becoming. This woman is openly & blatantly in favor of limiting Free Speech yet so many so-called "Liberals" are lining up to support her. She has been right out in public sharing her very disturbing views on Free Speech. She certainly hasn't been shy. This nominee should never serve on our Supreme Court. Where did all the real Liberals go? The answer is they've become Socialists/Progressives instead. There is a difference. How sad.
     

Share This Page