I had actually thought Obama should get the justice he wanted until I read this.
I don't care AT ALL that she is not a judge. Neither was John Marshall, for goodness sake.
I don't care that she is not a strict constructionist. Neither were guys like Thurgood Marshall, Arthur Goldberg, or Felix Frankfurter. We're still here. And as someone once said, elections have consequences. If the people voted for Obama then the spectrum of justices SHOULD reflect that. IOW..TOUGH NUGGIES, think cynically before you vote.
While we can all agree that free speech does not mean yelling fire in a crowded theatre, considering the motive of the government to rationalize RESTRICTING free speech opens the door to standards of the time rather than making free speech an enduring mandate limiting the power of government PERMANENTLY.
Think about that.
When will other ideas become reprehensible? Which ones?
Anyone think William O Douglas, a CONSUMMATE liberal would go down that path? Those who claim to be liberal today have a curiously illiberal blindness.
Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment
Doctrine
Author(s): Elena Kagan
Source: The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 63, No. 2 (Spring, 1996), pp. 413-517
Published by: The University of Chicago Law Review
I don't care AT ALL that she is not a judge. Neither was John Marshall, for goodness sake.
I don't care that she is not a strict constructionist. Neither were guys like Thurgood Marshall, Arthur Goldberg, or Felix Frankfurter. We're still here. And as someone once said, elections have consequences. If the people voted for Obama then the spectrum of justices SHOULD reflect that. IOW..TOUGH NUGGIES, think cynically before you vote.
While we can all agree that free speech does not mean yelling fire in a crowded theatre, considering the motive of the government to rationalize RESTRICTING free speech opens the door to standards of the time rather than making free speech an enduring mandate limiting the power of government PERMANENTLY.
If the government motive is to allow the public "CORRECT" undistracted analysis of facts regarding its own future?And yet, all these qualifications notwithstanding, the concern with governmental motive remains a hugely important-indeed, the most important-explanatory factor in First Amendment law. If it does not account for the whole world of First Amendment doctrine, it accounts (and accounts alone) for a good part of it.
OBAMA this week : "You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter. With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction."
If the government motive is to eliminate certain words which they believe comprise hate speech? Check out page 416 onwards in that PDF because this EXACT issue is discussed. We have the exact kind of obnoxious 'speech' that caused the supreme court to decide the nazis could march in Skokie. Ms Kagan argues the other side over a cross bruning stating that (reprehensible, obnoxious,bigoted and disgusting ..AGREED) free speech can be restricted because these cretins who engaged in this cross burning have plenty of other ways to express themselves.
Think about that.
When will other ideas become reprehensible? Which ones?
Anyone think William O Douglas, a CONSUMMATE liberal would go down that path? Those who claim to be liberal today have a curiously illiberal blindness.
Ms Kagan has some 'splainin' to do
She should get the chance to answer questions about this
Getting this Sen Sessions, Sen Kyl, Sen Leahy ?
She should get the chance to answer questions about this
Getting this Sen Sessions, Sen Kyl, Sen Leahy ?