[...] Cory Booker! Whatever would g...
Did White House threaten Cory Booker for criticizing Obama’s attack ad? « Full Metal Patriot on Obama threatens to withhold Social Security checks despite sufficient funds [UPDATED] Social Security Chief Actuary exposes Obama deception
Elena Kagan’s questionable views on the U.S. Constitution
*** scroll down for updates ***
This was from Elena Kagan just last year, in her role as Solicitor General before the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC, arguing for the defendant (the Federal Election Commission) in favor of governmental censorship of political speech. According to her, laws which suppress the First Amendment are acceptable because “there has never been an enforcement action for books.”
This is what passes for Constitutional scholarship at Harvard? Just because our government has never rounded up books and burned them, let’s go ahead and approve of laws which would permit that kind of “enforcement action.” To Kagan’s way of thinking, the federal government should just be trusted that it won’t violate the Constitution, and should be allowed to pass laws which overturn inconvenient portions of the Bill of Rights.
Eric Zimmermann at The Hill lays out some of the particulars of the case:
In the case in question, Chief Justice John Roberts asked the government lawyer whether the law in question could also prevent the publication of a campaign-related book, if it was paid for by a corporation or labor union.“If it’s a 500-page book, and at the end it says, ‘and so vote for x,’ the government could ban that?” Roberts asked.
Kagan’s deputy, Malcolm L. Stewart, said yes.
“We could prohibit the publication of that book,” he responded.
In a later oral argument, Kagan slightly modified that position, but still found herself arguing that the government could ban certain pamphlets, depending on who paid for their publication.
“And if you say that you are not going to apply it to a book, what about a pamphlet?” Roberts asked.
“A pamphlet would be different. A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering, so there is no attempt to say that [law] only applies to video and not to print,” Kagan responded.
This is the person President Obama thinks is qualified (with no experience as a justice) to serve as a justice of the highest court in the land, making Constitutional decisions which will affect the freedom of every America citizen. According to Elena Kagan, it’s ok for Congress to pass laws which suppress free speech if the government doesn’t approve of where that speech is coming from.
After Kagan breezes through what jokingly passes for Senate “confirmation,” she’ll need those black justice robes to cover up her brown shirt.
—
UPDATE: More pablum from the towering intellect of Elena Kagan — the general provisions in the Constitution are “meant to be interpreted over time.” No wonder she’s so demonstrably wrong on so many issues. These liberal idealogues are as detestable as they are predictable.
—
UPDATE: This should come as no surprise; Kagan is open to the idea of using international law to interpret the U.S. Constitution.
Posted by FullMetalPatriot
12th gen. American, Constitutionalist, Harley-riding Texan, gun owner & NRA member, blogger, illustrator, Florida Gator alumnus. #TCOT
12th gen. American, Constitutionalist, Harley-riding Texan, gun owner & NRA member, blogger, illustrator, Florida Gator alumnus. #TCOT
This woman(?) is dangerous.
Why is this woman even being considered? Why wasn't she given the boot 10 seconds after she came in the door?
Perhaps because we have a government of the Government, by the Government, for the Government, which shall perish from the Earth.
If the progs get a majority on SCOTUS, we're sunk as a nation. I hope the Republicans have the guts to filibuster Kagan.