The Difference Between America And The Democrat Party

[PoliticalChic]

1.Perhaps the greatest problem for America’s future is the lacunae exhibited by Democrat voters: the are misled by government school, and they don’t read books. History becomes what the Marxist teachers tell them it is….have you seen how many posters deny that the Democrats and the Nazi Party are both socialist?


2. Most dramatic in proving that the Democrats are not Americans is the lack of shared values with Americans:
…they oppose free speech, the second amendment, and the free practice of one’s religion. Let me explain why: The Constitution was a distillation of the views of Madison, Jefferson and Franklin. Progressivism is from the views of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx.





3. Grasping America by the throat, the Progressives/Democrats have place these bizarre choices on our Supreme Court: a woman who believe that some ethnicities can decide cases better than others….not ‘all men are created equal’

And a woman who can’t figure out what a woman is, versus a man.

And, a women who opposes free speech.





4. "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".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"



No Democrat voter has been able to defend these attacks on America.

Nor have they tried.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Fox Nation falsely suggested that Solicitor General and Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan argued that speech promoting “racial or gender inequality” could be “disappeared” by the government. In fact, in the article Fox Nation cited, Kagan actually stated that “the uncoerceddisappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation”; she did not advocate for a government ban on all such speech.

Kagan article did not endorse allowing government to “disappear” speech. In its article, WorldNetDaily cited an essay Kagan wrote to claim that Kagan “argued certain forms of speech that promote 'racial or gender inequality' could be 'disappeared.'.” In fact, in her essay, Kagan addressed government attempts to regulate hate speech and pornography consistent with First Amendment principles. Kagan stated:

This Essay on the regulation of hate speech and pornography addresses both practicalities and principles. 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. I do not take it as a given that all governmental efforts to regulate such speech thus accord with the Constitution.

Kagan: The First Amendment presumption against allowing the government to engage in “viewpoint discrimination” “has real worth.” Kagan wrote in conclusion:

The presumption against viewpoint discrimination, relied upon in Hudnut and further strengthened in R.A.V., has come to serve as the very keystone of First Amendment jurisprudence. This presumption, in my view, has real worth, in protecting against improperly motivated governmental action and against distorting effects on public discourse. And even if I assign it too great a value, the principle still will have to be taken into account by those who favor any regulation either of hate speech or of pornography.

Law professor Volokh estimates that, like Justice Ginsburg, Kagan will likely be “generally pretty speech-protective.” Libertarian law professor Eugene Volokh examined Kagan's scholarship on the First Amendment, and concluded that “the likeliest bet” is that Kagan would be “generally speech-protective, but probably with some exceptions in those areas where the liberal Justices on the Court have taken a more speech-restrictive view.” Volokh wrote:

My guess is that the likeliest bet would be to say that a Justice Kagan would be roughly where Justice Ginsburg is -- generally pretty speech-protective, but probably with some exceptions in those areas where the liberal Justices on the Court have taken a more speech-restrictive view, chiefly expensive speech related to campaigns and religious speech in generally available government subsidies. Not perfect from my perspective, but not bad, and no worse than Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg largely agreed on such matters.

Fox falsely suggests Kagan wants government to "disappear" certain speech

Fox Nation falsely suggested that Solicitor General and Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan argued that speech promoting "racial or gender inequality" could be "disappeared" by the government. In fact, in the article Fox Nation cited, Kagan actually stated that "the uncoerced disappearance of such...

www.mediamatters.org

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The constitution was designed to protect the citizens from a rogue government.
But the Democrat presidents always choose anti-constitution Supreme Court judges.

 

[Donald H]

No Democrat voter has been able to defend these attacks on America.

Nor have they tried.

The rule of law in America has been stopped dead in it's tracks by Trump's blatantly corrupt judge.

You now find yourself on the side of fascism, having to support this action being taken against democracy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fox Nation falsely suggested that Solicitor General and Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan argued that speech promoting “racial or gender inequality” could be “disappeared” by the government. In fact, in the article Fox Nation cited, Kagan actually stated that “the uncoerceddisappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation”; she did not advocate for a government ban on all such speech.

Kagan article did not endorse allowing government to “disappear” speech. In its article, WorldNetDaily cited an essay Kagan wrote to claim that Kagan “argued certain forms of speech that promote 'racial or gender inequality' could be 'disappeared.'.” In fact, in her essay, Kagan addressed government attempts to regulate hate speech and pornography consistent with First Amendment principles. Kagan stated:


Kagan: The First Amendment presumption against allowing the government to engage in “viewpoint discrimination” “has real worth.” Kagan wrote in conclusion:


Law professor Volokh estimates that, like Justice Ginsburg, Kagan will likely be “generally pretty speech-protective.” Libertarian law professor Eugene Volokh examined Kagan's scholarship on the First Amendment, and concluded that “the likeliest bet” is that Kagan would be “generally speech-protective, but probably with some exceptions in those areas where the liberal Justices on the Court have taken a more speech-restrictive view.” Volokh wrote:

Fox falsely suggests Kagan wants government to "disappear" certain speech

Fox Nation falsely suggested that Solicitor General and Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan argued that speech promoting "racial or gender inequality" could be "disappeared" by the government. In fact, in the article Fox Nation cited, Kagan actually stated that "the uncoerced disappearance of such...

www.mediamatters.org

"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".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"



No Democrat voter has been able to defend these attacks on America.

Nor have they tried.




All linked, Elmer......making you a scummy liar.

 

[Sixties Fan]

That link, is a USMB thread which will not open.

Post what you will.

Don't forget to vote.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That link, is a USMB thread which will not open.

Post what you will.

Don't forget to vote.

• A 1992 article in The Supreme Court Review, “The Changing Faces of First Amendment Neutrality: R.A.V. v. St. Paul, Rust v. Sullivan, and the Problem of Content-Based Underinclusion”
• A 1993 piece in the University of Chicago Law Review, “Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V.”
• A 1996 article in the U.C. Davis Law Review, “When a Speech Code is a Speech Code: The Stanford Policy and the Theory of Incidental Restraints”
• A 1996 article in the University of Chicago Law Review, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine”

Exactly when did you begin transitioning into a Fascist?

Was surgery involved?




Keep your filthy hands off the first amendment.

 

[BULLDOG]

1.Perhaps the greatest problem for America’s future is the lacunae exhibited by Democrat voters: the are misled by government school, and they don’t read books. History becomes what the Marxist teachers tell them it is….have you seen how many posters deny that the Democrats and the Nazi Party are both socialist?


2. Most dramatic in proving that the Democrats are not Americans is the lack of shared values with Americans:
…they oppose free speech, the second amendment, and the free practice of one’s religion. Let me explain why: The Constitution was a distillation of the views of Madison, Jefferson and Franklin. Progressivism is from the views of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx.





3. Grasping America by the throat, the Progressives/Democrats have place these bizarre choices on our Supreme Court: a woman who believe that some ethnicities can decide cases better than others….not ‘all men are created equal’

And a woman who can’t figure out what a woman is, versus a man.

And, a women who opposes free speech.





4. "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".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"



No Democrat voter has been able to defend these attacks on America.

Nor have they tried.

Your thread is yet another excellent cut and paste job.
If Democrats are not the same as Americans, how do you explain so many more registered Democrats than registeredrepubs?

 

[Flash]

The constitution was designed to protect the citizens from a rogue government.
But the Democrat presidents always choose anti-constitution Supreme Court judges.

If you put filthy American hating Leftest Justices on the Supreme Court then you don't have to worry about the Constitution protecting the individual rights that the Leftest hate so much. They will simply circumvent the Constitution.

The Leftest assholes believe in collective rights, not individual rights.

They need to do away with individual rights to make this country the Socialist shithole that they desire so much.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Courts are ever more deciding cases based on the rights of free speech. Thank goodness for the first amendment. Freedom itself seems ever more to depend on it, but not everyone is happy.

The New York Times, however, suggests a different interpretation. Quoting Justice Elena Kagan, the Times suggests that the trend toward deciding for human rights against government control amounts to “weaponizing” free speech."

The Philosophical Reason for the Attacks on Free Speech

In the old days, people associated the Left with an ethos akin to the ACLU today: the right to speak, publish, and associate. The turn that took place with the New Left actually flipped whatever remaining attachment that the old left had with freedom.

www.aier.org

"Elena Kagan authored a brief to the Supreme Court arguing that “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.” This is the kind of instrumentalism that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was famous for and of which Sunstein would be proud. You might even call it Ivy League “empathy.”

The Supreme Court rejected Kagan’s argument, but, as Mark Tapscott has said, “had the justices accepted her assertion, it would have effectively repealed the First Amendment’s protection of speech and replaced it by granting government the authority to decide what speech should be permitted.”

Kagan on Free Speech | National Review

An unsigned Daily Princetonian editorial from February 8, 1980, during Elena Kagan’s tenure as editorial chairman, has surfaced. To the uninitiated, the piece looks free-speech-friendly, even open-…

www.nationalreview.com

Elena Kagan's Watered Down View Of Free Speech – The Moderate Voicethemoderatevoice.com› elena-kagans-watered-down-view-of-free-speech

June 26, 2010 - With many having ceded their objectivity to the meme that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has left no public footprints by which to assess her judicial philosophy, her long standing views on watering down free speech rights have slipped beneath the radar. Until now.



Kagan and free speechproteinwisdom.com

Kagan’s 1996 article “Private ... should make any free speech advocate feel uncomfortable. In the article, Kagan suggests a broader basis for possible government regulation of speech and suggests that it should be the motives of the government (as opposed to the right to free ...

 

[Sixties Fan]

• A 1992 article in The Supreme Court Review, “The Changing Faces of First Amendment Neutrality: R.A.V. v. St. Paul, Rust v. Sullivan, and the Problem of Content-Based Underinclusion”
• A 1993 piece in the University of Chicago Law Review, “Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V.”
• A 1996 article in the U.C. Davis Law Review, “When a Speech Code is a Speech Code: The Stanford Policy and the Theory of Incidental Restraints”
• A 1996 article in the University of Chicago Law Review, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine”

Exactly when did you begin transitioning into a Fascist?

Was surgery involved?




Keep your filthy hands off the first amendment.

You are crashing. It is dangerous.

Make sense of what you are saying.

NO ONE is doing anything to the First Amendment. OR the second Amendment.

Your first post did not make sense so I found the correction about it.

You and others are what you read. Fox.


Fox is not good for one's health, as the heathy journalists/anchors are leaving, one by one.


Enjoy your freedom of speech.

 

[Donald H]

Your thread is yet another excellent cut and paste job.
If Democrats are not the same as Americans, how do you explain so many more registered Democrats than registeredrepubs?
View attachment 697639

Don't become complacent and over confident. There has only been two examples of the rise of fascism in history and in both instances fascism couldn't be stopped.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are crashing. It is dangerous.

Make sense of what you are saying.

NO ONE is doing anything to the First Amendment. OR the second Amendment.

Your first post did not make sense so I found the correction about it.

You and others are what you read. Fox.


Fox is not good for one's health, as the heathy journalists/anchors are leaving, one by one.


Enjoy your freedom of speech.

I am surprised that you don’t feel conspicuous, marching around in that brown shirt and the helmet with the spike on top….

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Most troubling of all is that the line of reasoning running through Kagan's opposition to our case leads directly to the conclusion that the government has the authority to ban books and other forms of communication. When our case was reargued before the high court last September, Kagan tried to walk back from that reasoning, saying that the "FEC has never applied this statute to a book." But she specifically noted that pamphlets could be censored, which leads to questions: What about content published on a Kindle or an iPad? What about YouTube or other Internet sites that do not have 200 years of tradition and jurisprudence protecting them? Is a statement from a government lawyer that "we've never prosecuted anyone for that" really an acceptable protection of a constitutionally guaranteed right? As Chief Justice John Roberts rightly noted that day, "we don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats."

Kagan would wield enormous power over the constitutionally guaranteed right of every American to participate in the political process — a right that she believes government can restrict."

Bossie: Freedom of speech comes first

I have no doubt that Elena Kagan is an intelligent and capable attorney, and I do not believe, as some have asserted, that her lack of judicial experience disqualifies her for a seat on the Supreme C…

www.statesman.com

Sieg Heil, Frau Kagan!

 

[PoliticalChic]

"5th Circuit upholds Texas law forbidding social media ‘censorship’ — again​

The ruling is a win for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in their efforts to combat what they call censorship of conservative viewpoints by social media companies.

bans social media companies from censoring users’ viewpoints is constitutionally allowed, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday, in a blow to Facebook, Twitter and Google.

The ruling is a win for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in their efforts to combat what they call censorship of conservative viewpoints by social media companies."

5th Circuit upholds Texas law forbidding social media ‘censorship’ — again

The ruling is a win for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in their efforts to combat what they call censorship of conservative viewpoints by social media companies.

www.politico.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

I am surprised that you don’t feel conspicuous, marching around in that brown shirt and the helmet with the spike on top….

Right out of Tucker Carlson's book.

 

[Flash]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Right out of Tucker Carlson's book.

You've given up denying that Kagan, like you, hates free speech?

An admission that you are lying scum, huh????

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. “I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.



The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"....Justice Elena Kagan, in her earlier legal career, repeatedly asserted that First Amendment free-speech guarantees should be subject to a “categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.” The rights existed only because the government was “doling out th[e] favor” of those rights .

If the rights are a favor that can be doled out, then they can just as easily be withheld. That’s how the Left justifies speech codes , the heckler’s veto , and other means of shutting down speech unwelcome to a vocal faction."

KBJ opposes the Declaration of Independence, so oppose her - Washington Examiner

The Senate should not confirm Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson because she does not believe in the Declaration of Independence.Credit to Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center for catching a worrisome exchange on this topic on page 79 of Jackson’s response to written...

www.washingtonexaminer.com