Kagan to SCOTUS ?

About: Elena Kagan - News Front on Google

The Wikipedia bio on Elena Kagan is here.
The Weekly Standard proposes here that her abortion stance is related to this article: Kagan Supported Daschle's Phony Late-Term Abortion Ban in '97

I am most concerned about her free speech thinking:

Source: ...

... because it almost says that free speech is only guaranteed for the politically correct viewpoints:

I wonder what she thinks of Canada's recent take that reporters can no longer protect their sources. This comes into play in the recent trend to look to other country's laws as a guideline when considering reasoning on some ours for constitutionality. Kagan should be asked about Canada's law.

... I knew a suitable cartoon would come around some day.

Apparently if she has no judicial experience I would suspect that a good showing in Wisdom, thought & integrity would be second best. I see nothing in those domains, though which support her nomination.

Kagan 'Not Sympathetic' to Gun-Rights Argument...
Like Freedom of Speech: 'Not Unlimited Protection'...

Comments

Mark de LA says

Pruden: ... Here's how the Founding Fathers, ever suspicious of ambitious Lilliputians, wrote the guarantee of free speech: "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 of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Note that the First Amendment does not say that Congress "should" make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or that it would be nice if it didn't. The operative words are "shall make no law."

The Constitution has "evolved" since then, of course, and now the liberal left, led by the Warren Court and its bastard progeny, has discovered all manner of "emanations" and "penumbra," like an embedded Da Vinci code, that the Constitution doesn't really mean what the words say it means. What part of "shall" can Mzz Kagan not understand?

She does not identify, exactly, what speech the government could regard as inflicting such "harm" as to justify suspending the Constitution, but she offers as examples incitement to violence, "hate speech" and "fighting words." Since certain friends of the White House have suggested that "tea party" activists may have already been guilty of sedition, we can imagine what some of the violations might one day be.

...Wes Pruden writes a brilliant editorial on Kagan's point of view on the first amendment.

Mark de LA says

There is a pattern here:

Mark de LA says

M 2011-12-08 08:37:19 13759

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/8/gop-questions-two-month-gap-kagans-health-care-inv/ ... again the justice department withholds information from Congress.

Obamacare fix anyone?

Kagan to SCOTUS ?

About: Elena Kagan - News Front on Google

Tags

Comments

See Also