Haven’t heard about this on the nightly news, have you?

On one hand, she was just doing her job as Solicitor General and this may not reflect her personal feelings or how she might rule when on the Court. On the other hand, what’s up with Obama promoting crapola like this?

According to an explosive special report on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s views on the First Amendment right to free speech, in September of 2009 Kagan encouraged the Court to adhere to a new philosophy on the First Amendment that would allow the government to censor posters, pamphlets, and TV and radio content–and the Internet.

In a stunning news report issued today by CNS, the following information was disclosed:

“The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” wrote Roberts. “Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”

Even liberal Justice Ginsberg questioned Kagan about the policy, inquiring as to whether or not the same principle could be used to ban books.




  1. brm says:

    #34 Benjamin:

    And just to short-circuit any useless arguing, the fact that you say:

    “I would like to use MY resources that are OWNED BY THE CORPORATION” (emphasis added)

    proves that you’re confused.

  2. clancys_daddy says:

    Free speech for every one that I agree with.

  3. deowll says:

    #2 I said Bush was the enemy of liberty. Obama is the enemy of liberty and blindly partisan party stooges like you are the enemy of liberty.

    Of course people like yourself do make nice servants once the elite make them understand who their boss is. Who knows? They might even let you breed rather than just writing you off as surplus population? Somebody has to clean the streets and take out the garbage.

    I wish I were making a bad joke or just being a spiteful jerk but that is pretty much how I read the progressives and the underclass that supports them.

    Well at least you don’t have to worry. You masters well take care of you after all taking care of their inferiors is their social duty just as long as said inferiors know their place and keep it.

  4. bobbo, with kind regards to all spiteful jerks says:

    #43–do-ill==did you jump out of context or can you go one more time around the race track for us slow ones and connect the dots for how being against Corporations spending unlimited money in political contests is “anti-freedom.”

    -or- just more generally explain why you confuse “anything a corporation does” with “doing business” with “capitalism” with “freedom.”

    I don’t know if that better describes a Chain of Fools or a Circle Jerk.

  5. clancys_daddy says:

    43 dude the blue and red pills don’t go together. Its the blue and yellow ones you take together, and the red ones go with food.

  6. sargasso says:

    For confused foreigners, the Supreme Court is a non-representative house of government whose limited membership are nominated by a President. Only death and abdication can remove a Supreme Court Chief Justice; incompetence, insanity, dementia and mental disability are apparently OK.

  7. Cap'nKangaroo says:

    #39. What I was saying is the right wing loon who wrote the article is trying to rally other right wing loons against Kagan. If he put in that her argument also hurt unions, right wing loons would not know whether to oppose Kagan for hurting corporations or support her for opposing unions.

  8. Scarecrow413 says:

    Ummm…

    This article doesn’t say an effing thing. Quotations are so obviously out of context as to be meaningless.

    “The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” wrote Roberts.

    Ok. Kagan is expressing NO opinion here. She’s quoting Roberts.

    Quotation continues…

    “Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”

    If I read this right… If this follows normal grammatical formatting, she’s repeating someone else’s opinion.

    What effing information is “disclosed?”

    What the hell is this original article saying?

    It attributes NOT A GODDAMN WORD TO KAGAN’S PERSONAL POLITICAL VIEWS ON ISSUES, IT ONLY QUOTES HER QUOTATIONS!

    Sheesh!

  9. MikeN says:

    Obama told us that Kagan took a special interest in this case because it is dear to her heart.
    The article quotes from Roberts’ opinion referring to the government case. They would have done better going to the actual Supreme Court oral arguments.

  10. MikeN says:

    No need to manufacture a case against Kagan. Her refusal to support the military while Dean of Harvard Law School is enough.

  11. jccalhoun says:

    MikeN said
    Her refusal to support the military while Dean of Harvard Law School is enough.

    That is a good reason to support her but it certainly isn’t enough since she’s has so little experience in a courtroom.

  12. Uncle Patso says:

    # 43 deowll, I do not get what you are saying. At all. It sounds like you are saying that progressives want to create and maintain a permanent underclass to keep the streets clean. Something like that? Your posts are usually very clear.

    – - – - -

    # 50 MikeN:
    “No need to manufacture a case against Kagan. Her refusal to support the military while Dean of Harvard Law School is enough.”

    Be fair: she eventually reversed that policy.