Skip to comments.Kagan Argued for Government 'Redistribution of Speech'
Posted on 05/13/2010 7:58:18 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
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 governments reasons for restricting free speech were what mattered most and not necessarily the effect of those restrictions on speech.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
This is the fairness doctrine.
This is localism.
This is net neutrality.
And this is the FCC’s plan to make the internet a utility.
They are all the same. This is what they mean when they say these things.
In Citizens United she said that government can censor books, magazines, downloads etc ect that were political.
This is precisely the trouble wuth liberals.
They want to change, twist and pervert and subvert our Constitutional protections and liberties in order to suit their own ends.
Conservatives are always wrongly accused of subverting the Constitution but it is liberals who are really trashing it every single chance they get.
The reason is because the Constitution keeps liberals from adopting their insane, crazy and nutty policies.
The fact that many liberals are marxists, socislists, fascists and communists are the reason behind their motivation.
as long as the government labeled it “hate speech” then censorship is ok?
want to bet the obamacrats are “scrubbing” ala 1984 the internet of anything kagan?
She is Obama’s meirs.
The GOP is too stupid to stop her. They will have ONE republican (grahmnesty?) who will vote for her and allow her out of committee.
They need to lock her in committee and end this nomination.
Supreme Court To Face Mecca
by Ann Coulter
Americans can thank the Supreme Court for the attempted car bombing of Times Square, as well as any future terrorist attacks that might be less “amateurish” and which our commander in chief will be unable to thwart unless the bomb fizzles.
Over blistering dissents by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, five Supreme Court justices have repeatedly voted to treat jihadists like turnstile jumpers. (Thanks, Justice Kennedy!)
That’s worked so well that Obama’s own attorney general is now talking about making massive exceptions to the Miranda warnings — exceptions that will apply to all criminal suspects, by the way — in order to deal with terrorists having to be read their rights as a bomb is about to go off.
Let’s be clear: When Eric Holder thinks we’re being too easy on terrorists, we are being too easy on terrorists.
Either the five liberal justices demanding constitutional rights for terrorists are out of their minds, or the religious worship of President Franklin D. Roosevelt has got to stop. According to liberal logic in the war on terrorism, FDR was a bloodthirsty war criminal.
When six Germans and two Americans were suspected of plotting an attack on U.S. munitions plants during World War II, FDR immediately ordered them arrested and tried in a secret military tribunal held behind closed doors at the Department of Justice.
Within weeks, all were found guilty. Six of the eight, including one U.S. citizen, were given the electric chair. One German was sentenced to life in prison and the other American citizen — who had turned himself in and revealed the plot to the FBI — got 30 years.
The Supreme Court upheld the secret trial, but didn’t get around to producing an opinion until after Old Sparky had rendered its own verdict.
Consider that the eight saboteurs never actually did anything other than enter the country illegally, which I gather is considered a constitutional right these days (except in my future home state of Arizona).
Still, FDR had them executed or imprisoned after trial in a secret military tribunal.
How many future car bombers would be discouraged if Faisal Shahzad were tried by military tribunal and executed by, say, the end of the month? What if Army doctor Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had already gotten the chair?
But we can’t do that because, according to five Supreme Court justices who aren’t “progressive” enough for American liberals, terrorists waging war on U.S. soil get full constitutional protections.
So, instead, we’re left arguing about whether an exception should be made to Miranda rights in the case of a terrorist who plotted with foreign agents to plant a car bomb in Times Square. (”You have the right to remain violent ...”)
We are at war. The Supreme Court has no right to stick its fat, unelected nose into the commander in chief’s constitutional war powers, particularly in a war against savages whose only reason for not nuking us yet is that they don’t have the technology. (The New York Times hasn’t gotten around to printing it.)
The reason Democrats are obsessed with controlling the courts is that unelected judges issuing final edicts is the only way liberals can attain their insane policy agenda. No group of Americans outside of Nancy Pelosi’s district would vote for politicians who enacted laws similar to the phony “constitutional rights” liberal justices proclaim from the Supreme Court.
President Obama would rather surrender his authority as commander in chief to the Supreme Court than get blamed for deciding to treat terrorists as if they’re Paris Hilton facing a drunk driving charge. Let the court do it.
(Recall that Obama’s decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attack, in a civilian court in New York was even less popular with the American people than Jay Leno at 10 p.m.)
Meanwhile, elected Democrats in Congress are also happy to yield their law-making authority to the court, so they don’t have to be the ones voting for laws mandating late-term abortions; hard-core pornography on the Internet; government-sanctioned race discrimination; forced cross-district busing; confiscatory property tax hikes to fund socially engineered school desegregation plans; bans on the public observation of religious traditions shared by most Americans; free education, health care and welfare benefits for illegal immigrants; and a redefinition of the 2,000-year-old institution of marriage against the express wishes of voters in every state to vote on it.
(Note: This is only a partial list.)
The Supreme Court has become a Blue Ribbon Commission for Lunatics, issuing binding edicts in 5-4 votes that Americans would never in a million years vote for. Distinguishing between Elena Kagan and any other Democratic nominee is like distinguishing between Hannibal Lecter and Vlad the Impaler.
especially if the speech expresses “hate” towards leftist/elitist government power.
PREZ SLINGING MUD TO STOKE HIS BASE
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on May 10, 2010
He said he had the audacity to hope that America could rise above the politics of partisan polarization and embrace the sunlight paths of compromise and cooperation. But that was then and this is now.
Faced with falling polls and the chance of wholesale obliteration of his majorities in Congress, President Obama has plainly decided to pursue the very politics of division and partisan animus he once claimed to eschew.
To grasp the reasons behind Obama’s descent into the mud, start with some basic facts. In 2008, he won almost exactly the same percentage of the white vote that John Kerry won in 2004. The reasons he won and Kerry lost were all demographic:
* Obama generated an African-American turnout three points higher than Kerry, and almost all of those new voters supported him.
* Latino-American voters gave Obama a margin of 45 points while they supported Kerry by only 10 — and they constituted 1 percent more of the vote in ‘08 than in ‘04.
* Obama offset his losses among older white voters by increasing the turnout and the Democratic margin among whites under age 30.
While Obama seemed to avoid the politics of race in his campaign, identity politics and ethnic fault lines were in fact crucial to electing him president.
Now he’s returning to dance with those that brought him. He has launched a broad campaign to polarize the electorate and increase levels of fear and racial tension to serve his cause. Each aspect of this new offensive has a clear strategic objective.
* Obama is outspoken in his criticism of the Arizona immigration law as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pushes an immigration-reform bill. Both surely realize that the bill has no serious chance of enactment this year now that the Republicans, led by Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) have walked away from the table. But they want the issue and the polarization it brings.
By making Hispanic voters feel under assault — by emphasizing that the Arizona law could mean that they would be hauled down to the police station at any moment to prove their legal status — Obama hopes to repeat the Democrats’ top-heavy Latino margins from 2008.
* His second front is to demonize Fox News and conservative advocacy groups like the Tea Partiers as polarizing and even accuse them of fomenting domestic terrorism. While he denounces Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, former President Bill Clinton darkly warns that the anti-government rhetoric of the Tea Party activists could incite Oklahoma City-style bombings and terrorism.
Both men are trying to scare the left and motivate a high turnout by painting the right as a force of darkness. By warning of barbarians at the gate, they hope to remedy the low turnout that has cost the Democrats victories in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts.
* Obama is also stepping up his attacks on the likes of Goldman Sachs and BP, disregarding the inconvenient truth that he is the largest recipient of their campaign donations in the nation. While both firms richly deserve our contempt, Obama is hoping to use their misconduct to link Republicans to big business and big oil to deflect his own efforts to foist big government on the country.
All these efforts reflect the basic problem Democrats have in off-year elections — that voter turnout is typically 15 to 20 points lower than in presidential years. Normally, it is precisely the president’s political base that stays home — African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, single women and young people.
By raising racial and partisan tensions and stoking class animosities, Obama hopes to gin up the turnout and avert disaster for his party in November.
Republicans must not take the bait. They should emphasize employer penalties for hiring illegals so that the flow dries up and neither harsh laws like Arizona’s nor an amnesty will be needed. The GOP needs to stress Obama’s connections with both Goldman and BP and push their own ideas for regulatory reform. And Fox News needs to continue to do what it does best — get new viewers and expand its reach.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick’s columns!
PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY
L.A. Teacher Calls for Mexican Revolt in the U.S.
The Roman Empire, the greatest civilization the world had known up to that time was not brought down by opposing armies, but by the disorderly influx of aliens coming across the borders to get a piece of the action that was accorded Roman citizens. They did not bring their allegience with them, just their desire for Roman largesse. Does this sound familiar?
- The real reason for the AZ law that just passed:
Subject: Arizona - The real reason
I’m Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen. I want to explain SB 1070
which I voted for and was just signed by Governor Jan Brewer.
Rancher Rob Krantz was murdered by the drug cartel on his ranch a
month ago. I participated in a senate hearing two weeks ago on the
border violence, here is just some of the highlights from those who
The people who live within 60 to 80 miles of the Arizona/Mexico Border
have for years been terrorized and have pleaded for help to stop the
daily invasion of humans who cross their property . One Rancher
testified that 300 to 1200 people a DAY come across his ranch
vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles and property, cutting
down his fences, and leaving trash. In the last two years he has found
17 dead bodies and two Koran bibles.
Another rancher testified that daily drugs are brought across his
ranch in a military operation. A point man with a machine gun goes in
front, 1/2 mile behind are the guards fully armed, 1/2 mile behind
them are the drugs, behind the drugs 1/2 mile are more guards. These
people are violent and they will kill anyone who gets in the way. This
was not the only rancher we heard that day that talked about the drug
One man told of two illegal’s who came upon his property one shot in
the back and the other in the arm by the drug runners who had forced
them to carry the drugs and then shot them. Daily they listen to gun
fire during the night it is not safe to leave his family alone on the
ranch and they can’t leave the ranch for fear of nothing being left
when they come back.
The border patrol is not on the border. They have set up 60 miles away
with check points that do nothing to stop the invasion. They are not
allowed to use force in stopping anyone who is entering. They run
around chasing them, if they get their hands on them then they can
take them back across the border.
Federal prisons have over 35% illegal’s and 20% of Arizona prisons are
filled with illegal’s. In the last few years 80% of our law
enforcement that have been killed or wounded have been by an illegal.
The majority of people coming now are people we need to be worried
about. The ranchers told us that they have seen a change in the people
coming they are not just those who are looking for work and a better
The Federal Government has refused for years to do anything to help
the border states . We have been over run and once they are here we
have the burden of funding state services that they use. Education
cost have been over a billion dollars. The healthcare cost billions of
dollars. Our State is broke, $3.5 billion deficit and we have many
serious decisions to make. One is that we do not have the money to
care for any who are not here legally. It has to stop.
The border can be secured. We have the technology we have the ability
to stop this invasion. We must know who is coming and they must come
in an organized manner legally so that we can assimilate them into our
population and protect the sovereignty of our country. We are a nation
of laws. We have a responsibility to protect our citizens and to
protect the integrity of our country and the government which we live
I would give amnesty today to many, but here is the problem, we dare
not do this until the Border is secure. It will do no good to forgive
them because thousands will come behind them and we will be over run
to the point that there will no longer be the United States of America
but a North American Union of open borders. I ask you what form of
government will we live under? How long will it be before we will be
just like Mexico , Canada or any of the other Central American or
South American countries? We have already lost our language,
everything must be printed in Spanish also. We have already lost our
history it is no longer taught in our schools. And we have lost our
The leftist media has distorted what SB 1070 will do. It is not going
to set up a Nazi Germany. Are you kidding. The ACLU and the leftist
courts will do everything to protect those who are here illegally, but
it was an effort to try and stop illegal’s from setting up businesses,
and employment, and receiving state services and give the ability to
local law enforcement when there is probable cause like a traffic stop
to determine if they are here legally. Federal law is very clear if
you are here on a visa you must have your papers on you at all times.
That is the law. In Arizona all you need to show you are a legal
citizen is a driver license, MVD identification card, Native American
Card, or a Military ID. This is what you need to vote, get a hunting
license, etc.. So nothing new has been added to this law. No one is
going to be stopped walking down the street etc... The Socialist who
are in power in DC are angry because we dare try and do something and
that something the Socialist wants us to do is just let them come.
They want the “Transformation” to continue.
Maybe it is too late to save America . Maybe we are not worthy of
freedom anymore. But as an elected official I must try to do what I
can to protect our Constitutional Republic . Living in America is not
a right just because you can walk across the border. Being an American
is a responsibility and it comes by respecting and upholding the
Constitution the law of our land which says what you must do to be a
citizen of this country. Freedom is not free.
The Administration intends to ban speech that disagrees with them.