Those Counterfeit Democrat Justices

[PoliticalChic]

1. Of course, we must begin with an understanding of the role of a Supreme Court Justice, and move on to the contumely due the Democrat Party for what it has done to the Court.
For a clear explanation of the role, here is Justice par excellence, Justice Wm.Rehnquist:
"...[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative officers concerning what is best for the country.

Surely there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal government, and there is even less justification for a federal legislative branch’s reviewing on a policy basis the laws enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



2. That bears restating: the only role for a Justice is to know the Constitution and apply.....it is written in English.....it to any problem that comes before the court.
Nothing else.


3. Democrats do not nominate judges for the court based either on knowledge, or the role stated above, merely to count on their vote no matter the issue.
And now, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit:
“Judge Jackson’s record of reversals by the left-leaning D.C. Circuit is troubling for anyone concerned about the rule of law,” Judicial Crisis Network president Carrie Severino told Fox News Digital on Tuesday.
Democrats have saddled the court with Kagan, an opponent of free speech and Sotomayor, a dunce who has claimed that different ethnic groups can read the Constitution differently.


4.This week the Court has taken a giant step toward reviving the America that the Founders believed they created, not an administrative state run by bureaucrats, technocrats and unelected judges.
In a major 6-3 ruling, for the case West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, limits the EPA's ability to set regulations on the energy sector a decision that poses massive implications on the Biden administration's goals to fight climate change.
The Court correctly decided that regulations of the sort the EPA claimed to have power over, are only constitutional when elected officials, the Congress, or legislatures offer them.




5. Now back to the befuddled imbecile, Democrat Kagan, who, like the majority of Democrat voters, is clueless as to the role of a Justice:
Kagan wrote:
".....a decision that poses massive implications for the Biden Administrations to fight climate change....."
"....this Court does not have a clue about how to address climate change...."




WHAT???????????


The Court's role is singular: to make certain that the only document the people have agreed to be governed by....the Constitution is adhered to.

This gormless idiot, and that applies to any Justice who voted against the EPA rebuke, is the reason that Democrats have one goal and one goal only......

....to destroy America.

 

[Moonglow]

Like federal judges insisting that Biden had to keep Title 42 in place because of Trump only to find out by the SC that the next president is under no obligation to continue policies from previous president?

 

[Moonglow]

1. Of course, we must begin with an understanding of the role of a Supreme Court Justice, and move on to the contumely due the Democrat Party for what it has done to the Court.
For a clear explanation of the role, here is Justice par excellence, Justice Wm.Rehnquist:
"...[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative officers concerning what is best for the country.

Surely there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal government, and there is even less justification for a federal legislative branch’s reviewing on a policy basis the laws enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



2. That bears restating: the only role for a Justice is to know the Constitution and apply.....it is written in English.....it to any problem that comes before the court.
Nothing else.


3. Democrats do not nominate judges for the court based either on knowledge, or the role stated above, merely to count on their vote no matter the issue.
And now, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit:
“Judge Jackson’s record of reversals by the left-leaning D.C. Circuit is troubling for anyone concerned about the rule of law,” Judicial Crisis Network president Carrie Severino told Fox News Digital on Tuesday.
Democrats have saddled the court with Kagan, an opponent of free speech and Sotomayor, a dunce who has claimed that different ethnic groups can read the Constitution differently.


4.This week the Court has taken a giant step toward reviving the America that the Founders believed they created, not an administrative state run by bureaucrats, technocrats and unelected judges.
In a major 6-3 ruling, for the case West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, limits the EPA's ability to set regulations on the energy sector a decision that poses massive implications on the Biden administration's goals to fight climate change.
The Court correctly decided that regulations of the sort the EPA claimed to have power over, are only constitutional when elected officials, the Congress, or legislatlures offer them.


5. Now back to the befuddled imbecile, Democrat Kagan, who, like the majority of Democrat voters, is clueless as to the role of a Justice:
Kagan wrote:
".....a decision that poses massive implications for the Biden Administrations to fight climate change....."
"....this Court does not have a clue about how to address climate change...."




WHAT???????????


The Court's role is singular: to make certain that the only document the people have agreed to be governed by....the Constitution.

This gormless idiot, and that applies to any Justice who voted against the EPA rebuke, is the reason that Democrats have one goal and one goal only......

....to destroy America.

Having an EPA doesn't destroy America like indsutry does.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Having an EPA doesn't destroy America like indsutry does.

Obama's EPA wanted to regulate industry using a bogus idea that CO2 is a pollutant thus create rules to control emissions.

That is how stupid democrats are when they advance bogus ideas since anyone who actually thinks knows CO2 at the 430ppm level that is an essential building block in the Photosynthesis process isn't even close to being a pollutant.

Democrats promote their stupidity blindly.

 

[Moonglow]

Obama's EPA wanted to regulate industry using a bogus idea that CO2 is a pollutant thus create rules to control emissions.

That is how stupid democrats are when they advance bogus ideas since anyone who actually thinks knows CO2 at the 430ppm level that is an essential building block in the Photosynthesis process isn't even close to being a pollutant.

Democrats promote their stupidity blindly.

Notice how they are not biologists?

 

[eddiew37]

For PC

Trump proven unfit for power again​

Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s Tuesday testimony ought to ring the death knell for former President Donald Trump’s political career. Trump is unfit to be anywhere near power ever again.

Hutchinson’s resume alone should establish her credibility. The 25-year-old had already worked at the highest levels of conservative Republican politics, including in the offices of Sen. Ted Cruz (TX) and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (LA), before becoming a top aide for former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows.

In short, Hutchinson was a conservative Trumpist true believer and a tremendously credible one at that. She did not overstate things, did not seem to be seeking attention, and was very precise about how and why she knew what she related and about which testimony was firsthand and which was secondhand but able to be corroborated.

What Hutchinson relayed was disturbing. She gave believable accounts of White House awareness that the planned Jan. 6 rally could turn violent. She repeated testimony that Trump not only knew that then-Vice President Mike Pence’s life had been credibly threatened that day but also that he was somewhere between uncaring and actually approving of Pence’s danger.

She also told, in detail, that Trump repeatedly insisted that he himself should join his supporters at the Capitol — even after being informed the crowd contained armed elements and that it was breaching the perimeter against an undermanned U.S. Capitol Police force.

Also distressing to hear were Hutchinson’s accounts of Trump’s repeated fits of rage, including dining table contents overturned and ketchup dishes thrown violently across the room. The worst by far, though, was that people immediately returning from being with Trump in the presidential vehicle told of the president trying to grab the wheel of the car to force it to be driven to the Capitol and then violently reaching for the neck of Secret Service agent Bobby Engel, who headed the president’s protective detail.

Hutchinson’s testimony confirmed a damning portrayal of Trump as unstable, unmoored, and absolutely heedless of his sworn duty to effectuate a peaceful transition of presidential power. Considering the entirety of her testimony, it is unsurprising that Hutchinson said she heard serious discussions of Cabinet members invoking the 25th Amendment that would have at least temporarily evicted Trump from office.

Trump is a disgrace. Republicans have far better options to lead the party in 2024. No one should think otherwise, much less support him, ever again.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/trump-proven-unfit-for-power-again

 

[PoliticalChic]

For PC

Trump proven unfit for power again​

Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s Tuesday testimony ought to ring the death knell for former President Donald Trump’s political career. Trump is unfit to be anywhere near power ever again.

Hutchinson’s resume alone should establish her credibility. The 25-year-old had already worked at the highest levels of conservative Republican politics, including in the offices of Sen. Ted Cruz (TX) and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (LA), before becoming a top aide for former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows.

In short, Hutchinson was a conservative Trumpist true believer and a tremendously credible one at that. She did not overstate things, did not seem to be seeking attention, and was very precise about how and why she knew what she related and about which testimony was firsthand and which was secondhand but able to be corroborated.

What Hutchinson relayed was disturbing. She gave believable accounts of White House awareness that the planned Jan. 6 rally could turn violent. She repeated testimony that Trump not only knew that then-Vice President Mike Pence’s life had been credibly threatened that day but also that he was somewhere between uncaring and actually approving of Pence’s danger.

She also told, in detail, that Trump repeatedly insisted that he himself should join his supporters at the Capitol — even after being informed the crowd contained armed elements and that it was breaching the perimeter against an undermanned U.S. Capitol Police force.

Also distressing to hear were Hutchinson’s accounts of Trump’s repeated fits of rage, including dining table contents overturned and ketchup dishes thrown violently across the room. The worst by far, though, was that people immediately returning from being with Trump in the presidential vehicle told of the president trying to grab the wheel of the car to force it to be driven to the Capitol and then violently reaching for the neck of Secret Service agent Bobby Engel, who headed the president’s protective detail.

Hutchinson’s testimony confirmed a damning portrayal of Trump as unstable, unmoored, and absolutely heedless of his sworn duty to effectuate a peaceful transition of presidential power. Considering the entirety of her testimony, it is unsurprising that Hutchinson said she heard serious discussions of Cabinet members invoking the 25th Amendment that would have at least temporarily evicted Trump from office.

Trump is a disgrace. Republicans have far better options to lead the party in 2024. No one should think otherwise, much less support him, ever again.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/trump-proven-unfit-for-power-again

Answer this quetion and we'll know who is fit to govern America: if you won't answer the question, readers will know your answer.



This:

Or This:

 

[Magnus]

1. Of course, we must begin with an understanding of the role of a Supreme Court Justice, and move on to the contumely due the Democrat Party for what it has done to the Court.
For a clear explanation of the role, here is Justice par excellence, Justice Wm.Rehnquist:
"...[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative officers concerning what is best for the country.

Surely there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal government, and there is even less justification for a federal legislative branch’s reviewing on a policy basis the laws enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



2. That bears restating: the only role for a Justice is to know the Constitution and apply.....it is written in English.....it to any problem that comes before the court.
Nothing else.


3. Democrats do not nominate judges for the court based either on knowledge, or the role stated above, merely to count on their vote no matter the issue.
And now, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit:
“Judge Jackson’s record of reversals by the left-leaning D.C. Circuit is troubling for anyone concerned about the rule of law,” Judicial Crisis Network president Carrie Severino told Fox News Digital on Tuesday.
Democrats have saddled the court with Kagan, an opponent of free speech and Sotomayor, a dunce who has claimed that different ethnic groups can read the Constitution differently.


4.This week the Court has taken a giant step toward reviving the America that the Founders believed they created, not an administrative state run by bureaucrats, technocrats and unelected judges.
In a major 6-3 ruling, for the case West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, limits the EPA's ability to set regulations on the energy sector a decision that poses massive implications on the Biden administration's goals to fight climate change.
The Court correctly decided that regulations of the sort the EPA claimed to have power over, are only constitutional when elected officials, the Congress, or legislatures offer them.




5. Now back to the befuddled imbecile, Democrat Kagan, who, like the majority of Democrat voters, is clueless as to the role of a Justice:
Kagan wrote:
".....a decision that poses massive implications for the Biden Administrations to fight climate change....."
"....this Court does not have a clue about how to address climate change...."




WHAT???????????


The Court's role is singular: to make certain that the only document the people have agreed to be governed by....the Constitution is adhered to.

This gormless idiot, and that applies to any Justice who voted against the EPA rebuke, is the reason that Democrats have one goal and one goal only......

....to destroy America.

Shocking! A racist conservative judge hated liberals? How will we ever live that down?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Shocking! A racist conservative judge hated liberals? How will we ever live that down?

But your admission that you have no answer......a perfect response from an America-hating Democrat.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. America is not America sans the Constitution.

The first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Yet the Democrats put this on the Supreme Court:

"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"

Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

Via The Volokh Conspiracy comes this blast from Elena Kagan’s past. The Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant reports: “According to records at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Littl…

thedaleygator.wordpress.com

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia




“Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intended the First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.”
Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?



What is the difference between Fascists and Democrats????



Good question.

 

[Magnus]

But your admission that you have no answer......a perfect response from an America-hating Democrat.

You tried to invalidate the liberal's position by quoting a racist conservative judge. I called you on it.

That's my answer. But since you are a retard, it flew over your head. My sympathies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You tried to invalidate the liberal's position by quoting a racist conservative judge. I called you on it.

That's my answer. But since you are a retard, it flew over your head. My sympathies.

What you did was attempt to change the subject by throwing the usual lies into the thread.

Here's your second chance: any errors in this post?????



1. Of course, we must begin with an understanding of the role of a Supreme Court Justice, and move on to the contumely due the Democrat Party for what it has done to the Court.
For a clear explanation of the role, here is Justice par excellence, Justice Wm.Rehnquist:
"...[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative officers concerning what is best for the country.

Surely there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal government, and there is even less justification for a federal legislative branch’s reviewing on a policy basis the laws enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



2. That bears restating: the only role for a Justice is to know the Constitution and apply.....it is written in English.....it to any problem that comes before the court.
Nothing else.


3. Democrats do not nominate judges for the court based either on knowledge, or the role stated above, merely to count on their vote no matter the issue.
And now, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit:
“Judge Jackson’s record of reversals by the left-leaning D.C. Circuit is troubling for anyone concerned about the rule of law,” Judicial Crisis Network president Carrie Severino told Fox News Digital on Tuesday.
Democrats have saddled the court with Kagan, an opponent of free speech and Sotomayor, a dunce who has claimed that different ethnic groups can read the Constitution differently.


4.This week the Court has taken a giant step toward reviving the America that the Founders believed they created, not an administrative state run by bureaucrats, technocrats and unelected judges.
In a major 6-3 ruling, for the case West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, limits the EPA's ability to set regulations on the energy sector a decision that poses massive implications on the Biden administration's goals to fight climate change.
The Court correctly decided that regulations of the sort the EPA claimed to have power over, are only constitutional when elected officials, the Congress, or legislatures offer them.




5. Now back to the befuddled imbecile, Democrat Kagan, who, like the majority of Democrat voters, is clueless as to the role of a Justice:
Kagan wrote:
".....a decision that poses massive implications for the Biden Administrations to fight climate change....."
"....this Court does not have a clue about how to address climate change...."




WHAT???????????


The Court's role is singular: to make certain that the only document the people have agreed to be governed by....the Constitution is adhered to.

This gormless idiot, and that applies to any Justice who voted against the EPA rebuke, is the reason that Democrats have one goal and one goal only......

....to destroy America.







But I am gratified that it caused you pain......

 

[Magnus]

What you did was attempt to change the subject by throwing the usual lies into the thread.

Here's your second chance: any errors in this post?????



1. Of course, we must begin with an understanding of the role of a Supreme Court Justice, and move on to the contumely due the Democrat Party for what it has done to the Court.
For a clear explanation of the role, here is Justice par excellence, Justice Wm.Rehnquist:
"...[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative officers concerning what is best for the country.

Surely there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal government, and there is even less justification for a federal legislative branch’s reviewing on a policy basis the laws enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



2. That bears restating: the only role for a Justice is to know the Constitution and apply.....it is written in English.....it to any problem that comes before the court.
Nothing else.


3. Democrats do not nominate judges for the court based either on knowledge, or the role stated above, merely to count on their vote no matter the issue.
And now, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit:
“Judge Jackson’s record of reversals by the left-leaning D.C. Circuit is troubling for anyone concerned about the rule of law,” Judicial Crisis Network president Carrie Severino told Fox News Digital on Tuesday.
Democrats have saddled the court with Kagan, an opponent of free speech and Sotomayor, a dunce who has claimed that different ethnic groups can read the Constitution differently.


4.This week the Court has taken a giant step toward reviving the America that the Founders believed they created, not an administrative state run by bureaucrats, technocrats and unelected judges.
In a major 6-3 ruling, for the case West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, limits the EPA's ability to set regulations on the energy sector a decision that poses massive implications on the Biden administration's goals to fight climate change.
The Court correctly decided that regulations of the sort the EPA claimed to have power over, are only constitutional when elected officials, the Congress, or legislatures offer them.




5. Now back to the befuddled imbecile, Democrat Kagan, who, like the majority of Democrat voters, is clueless as to the role of a Justice:
Kagan wrote:
".....a decision that poses massive implications for the Biden Administrations to fight climate change....."
"....this Court does not have a clue about how to address climate change...."




WHAT???????????


The Court's role is singular: to make certain that the only document the people have agreed to be governed by....the Constitution is adhered to.

This gormless idiot, and that applies to any Justice who voted against the EPA rebuke, is the reason that Democrats have one goal and one goal only......

....to destroy America.







But I am gratified that it caused you pain......

Blah blah blah. Same response, retard. When you address why you chose a racist to throw shade on liberal policy, we can have a dialogue.

Till then, no amount of verbal diarrhea can change that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Blah blah blah. Same response, retard. When you address why you chose a racist to throw shade on liberal policy, we can have a dialogue.

Till then, no amount of verbal diarrhea can change that.

So you've admitted that the OP that brought you slithering in, is 100% accurate, true and correct.


Having won that one, now I challenge you to explain how you can vote for the party that hates free speech and the Constitution....


This is what you vote for: and you're gonna' lose this one, too.



America is not America sans the Constitution.

The first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Yet the Democrats put this on the Supreme Court:

"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"

Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?​

Via The Volokh Conspiracy comes this blast from Elena Kagan’s past. The Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant reports: “According to records at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Littl…

thedaleygator.wordpress.com

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia




“Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intended the First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.”
Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?



What is the difference between Fascists and Democrats????



Good question.

 

[Magnus]

So you've admitted that the OP that brought you slithering in, is 100% accurate, true and correct.


Having won that one, now I challenge you to explain how you can vote for the party that hates free speech and the Constitution....


This is what you vote for: and you're gonna' lose this one, too.



America is not America sans the Constitution.

The first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Yet the Democrats put this on the Supreme Court:

"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"

Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?​

Via The Volokh Conspiracy comes this blast from Elena Kagan’s past. The Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant reports: “According to records at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Littl…

thedaleygator.wordpress.com

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia




“Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intended the First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.”
Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?



What is the difference between Fascists and Democrats????



Good question.

Blah blah blah. Same response, retard. When you address why you chose a racist to throw shade on liberal policy, we can have a dialogue.

Till then, no amount of verbal diarrhea can change that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. Let's continue pounding away at he iniquity of the European Party.....the Democrats......certainly not an American party.

Democrat Supreme Court Justice Kagan, shilling for the party rather than applying the Constitution.

Disgusting.


The Supreme Court has no role in supporting Democrat policies.
The Supreme Court has no role in climate change or otherwise.
The Supreme Court has no role in setting social engineering doctrine.



The blubbering bubble-head goes on:
"...the Court prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants carbon dioxide emissions"


No, that is not what the Court did....and it would not have been the role of the Supreme Court, Democrat dunce.




Notice.....no Democrat has come to support Kagan and the other two fools, becasue all Democrats can do is mumble agreement with any thing the party tells them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Blah blah blah. Same response, retard. When you address why you chose a racist to throw shade on liberal policy, we can have a dialogue.

Till then, no amount of verbal diarrhea can change that.

Strike three.

 

[Magnus]

Strike three.

Blah blah blah. Same response, retard. When you address why you chose a racist to throw shade on liberal policy, we can have a dialogue.

Till then, no amount of verbal diarrhea can change that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Blah blah blah. Same response, retard. When you address why you chose a racist to throw shade on liberal policy, we can have a dialogue.

Till then, no amount of verbal diarrhea can change that.

Back for another beating?????


You didn’t really imagine (I almost said ‘think’) I’d let you change the subject, did you, you dolt???

You voluntarily subscribe to the thread because of how deeply it injured you….and I continued to do so in two subsequent posts. And….the beat goes on.


I love when your sort posts and help in proving that Democrats have no ability when it comes to either thinking or having integrity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. Proof of how correct my indictment of Democrat Kagan is, is the fact that no Democrat voter is willing to include himself in the embarrassment that Kagan has brought on herself.

Neither Democrat Kagan, nor any Democrat voter, is able to show an understanding of the role of a Supreme Court Justice.


In fact, Gorsuch spanks her publicly:


Kagan: "And let's say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants' carbon dioxide emissions. The Court appoints itself — instead of Congress or the expert agency — the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening."



The buffoon.

Gorsuch takes her to the woodshed:

"The Supreme Court's decision handed a victory to West Virginia and a slew of Republican-led states, many of which are fossil fuel producers, that brought the challenge against the EPA's authority to impose sweeping regulations. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch pushed back on the dissent, writing that, "the Court hardly professes to 'appoint itself' 'the decision-maker on climate policy.'"

He continued: "The Court acknowledges only that, under our Constitution, the people's elected representatives in Congress are the decisionmakers here — and they have not clearly granted the agency the authority it claims for itself."

Justice Elena Kagan says Supreme Court 'does not have a clue about how to address climate change' as it limits EPA's authority on greenhouse gases

The Supreme Court on Thursday handed down a major ruling that narrowed the EPA's power to combat climate change.

www.businessinsider.com