Thursday, May 13, 2010

Slowly, slowly catchy monkey

Kagan Argued for Government 'Redistribution of Speech'

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan said the high court should be focused on ferreting out improper governmental motives when deciding First Amendment cases, arguing that the government’s reasons for restricting free speech were what mattered most and not necessarily the effect of those restrictions on speech.

On the surface, that paragraph seems to reflect a perspective in support of the people's right of free speech. And as she continued her explanation in her paper, the same line of reasoning seemed to prevail. Until we come to this part of her thesis on free speech and what constitutes appropriate government intervention in her opinion.

And since her 'opinions' are now more than relevant, seeing as she has been nominated for the highest court in the land?

The government, she concludes, may not express its disfavor with an opinion or speaker by burdening them with restrictions or prohibitions, unless it can show that their speech is causing some type of public harm.

“The doctrine of impermissible motive, viewed in this light, holds that the government may not signify disrespect for certain ideas and respect for others through burdens on expression,” Kagan wrote. “This does not mean that the government may never subject particular ideas to disadvantage. The government indeed may do so, if acting upon neutral, harm-based reasons.”

Neutral harm based reasoning and impermissible motives? Well there is certainly a novel way of looking at freedom of speech now isn't it.

In essence what the woman said as it concerns her opinion of freedom of speech is simply this. Freedom of speech is to be protected at all costs from interventions and transgressions of the government....."unless and until it can be determined that the speech in questions is causing harm." And once that can be determined, all bets are off.

For those who have never considered the realities being put forth when listening to and watching liberals and socialist progressives wail over their own civil liberties and their own free speech issues, it is relatively simple to decipher. Their view is simple in construct....'don't do as I do, do as I say do." Or in other words, you have no right to limit my speech, simply because you disagree with it. While I on the other hand, am perfectly within my right to limit yours. All that is required is that I simply demonstrate some alleged harm by allowing you to speak.

By all means follow the link and read everything that this woman has to say concerning freedom of speech, then consider these three points.

1. Elana Kagan is a hair's breath away from being confirmed as our next Supreme Court Justice. So barring a major revelation that would immediately disqualify her in the court of public opinion, she will be confirmed.

2. Once she is confirmed, she and the three other liberal justices Breyer, Soto Mayer, and Ginsburg will be well on the way to establishing their liberal version of the first amendment and what it represents.

3. There are three other elements involved in the first amendment.

a. freedom of the press.
b. freedom of religion.
c. freedom of assembly.

So how long before these rights come under the same scrutiny by Elena Kagan? How long before these rights become subject to the same tests as those that Elena Kagan would apply to freedom of speech.

How long before freedom of religion is visited by the same liberal construct as Kagan would apply to freedom of speech. How long before the constitutional test for allowing a religion to be practiced, is determined on the basis of whether or not the practice of that religion is causing 'some type of public harm?'

And just in case you are curious? I seriously doubt that standard will be applied to any religion other than Christianity. So no, the religion of peace will be allowed to continue under the auspices of Kagan's other determining factor. And there will be no "determining of improper government motives" for wanting to prohibit intervention against the house of Islam.

And if there is any doubt where this woman stands on freedoms or for how long she has harbored these no further than this little piece on her thoughts on gun control and the right to bear arms. Apparently, we have the right to bear arms right up to the point that she feels we don't. which is most of the time.

Kagan Said She Was `Not Sympathetic' Toward Gun-Rights Claim

Elena Kagan said as a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk in 1987 that she was “not sympathetic” toward a man who contended that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol.

Kagan, whom President Barack Obama nominated to the high court this week, made the comment to Justice Thurgood Marshall, urging him in a one-paragraph memo to vote against hearing the District of Columbia man’s appeal.

The man’s “sole contention is that the District of Columbia’s firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms,’” Kagan wrote. “I’m not sympathetic.”

Kagan, currently the U.S. solicitor general, has made few public remarks about the Constitution’s Second Amendment. The Supreme Court in 2008 ruled, in a case that overturned the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, that the Constitution protects individual gun rights.

No comments: