Kagan Argued for Government 'Redistribution of Speech'

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

  1. teapartysamurai
    Online

    teapartysamurai Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Messages:
    18,855
    Thanks Received:
    2,278
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,852
    the money quote:

    Read it all here: CNSNews.com - Kagan Argued for Government 'Redistribution of Speech'

    Now people, this all sounds reasonable (which liberalism on the surface always does) until you parse the real intent of this gobblydegook.

    What it really means is, the government can infringe speech as long as it has "good intentions."

    Now that is the heart of liberalism. She is saying don't examine the EFFECT a court decision may have, examine THE INTENTIONS.

    THAT'S LIBERALISM. You are NEVER supposed to examine any liberal policy or law, only the "good intentions."

    That is exactly what Kagan is saying in her doublespeak and that is exactly what she means.

    But who gets to decide what are GOOD INTENTIONS? Why liberals like Kagan, of course.

    It doesn't matter what effect it has on YOU and ME. All that matters is how liberals RATIONALIZE their "good intentions."

    So, typically liberal.

    :cuckoo:
     
  2. uptownlivin90
    Offline

    uptownlivin90 Rebelious Youngin

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,525
    Thanks Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maryland
    Ratings:
    +384
    Depends on what you mean by "liberals".
     
  3. JenyEliza
    Offline

    JenyEliza Princess of Rhetoric

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,046
    Thanks Received:
    353
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA, USA
    Ratings:
    +353
    "Government Redistribution of Speech"?

    WTF?

    Does she mean FREE BOOKS? FREE NEWSPAPERS? FREE SMARTPHONES?

    WHAT THE HELL does the pudgy Lesbinator mean? :eusa_think:
     
  4. JenyEliza
    Offline

    JenyEliza Princess of Rhetoric

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,046
    Thanks Received:
    353
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA, USA
    Ratings:
    +353
    Oh, and the road to Hell is paved with "good intentions". My Mom's favorite saying.

    Apparently the pudgy Lesbinator has never heard that saying. :eusa_think:
     
  5. LibocalypseNow
    Offline

    LibocalypseNow Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    12,337
    Thanks Received:
    1,356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,357
    This woman's beliefs on Free Speech are very disturbing. I don't understand how Liberals can support her. Both Democrats & Republicans should vote Nay on this nominee. For once i would like to see them buck the system and not just vote along party-lines. If you truly believe in Free Speech and our Constitution,you would have to vote Nay on this nominee.
     
  6. tommywho70x
    Offline

    tommywho70x BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    826
    Thanks Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +59
    couldn't say it any better myself. thank you
     
  7. drsmith1072
    Offline

    drsmith1072 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    6,031
    Thanks Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +250
    WOW more attempts to make something out of nothing.

    So how long before you cut and run from this thread like you do from all of the others that you start?

    YOUR MISinterpretations of what you BELIEVE to be someone elses intent is nothing but more right wing propaganda spewed by a lemming who can't think for himself.
     
  8. drsmith1072
    Offline

    drsmith1072 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    6,031
    Thanks Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +250
    "In doing so, Kagan constructed a complex framework that can be used by the Court to determine whether or not Congress has restricted First Amendment freedoms with improper intent.

    She defined improper intent as prohibiting or restricting speech merely because Congress or a public majority dislikes either the message or the messenger, or because the message or messenger may be harmful to elected officials or their political priorities."

    She was primarily arguing over congress' abilities and limitations to limit free speech and how the SCOTUS could define what crosses the line and what does not.

    According to your own article she defines what she was saying so there really is no reason or justification for you to reinterpret a meaning that has already been clearly stated by the author.

    However, thanks for the spin.
     
  9. LibocalypseNow
    Offline

    LibocalypseNow Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    12,337
    Thanks Received:
    1,356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,357
    If you consider yourself to be a Liberal,you could never support this nominee. Her record on Free Speech is atrocious. Both Democrats & Republicans need to vote Nay on this nominee.
     

Share This Page