Posted on 09/22/2013 9:46:54 AM PDT by Republican Wildcat
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has revealed the technological blind spots of the land’s highest court, which —she joked Thursday in Lexington — extends to the intricacies of social media.
Speaking at the UK Singletary Center, Kagan told UK College of Law Dean David A. Brennen that the court is “conservative” when it comes to adopting technology, even as questions about those technologies reach the court.
“It’s a real challenge to learn enough about all these new-fangled things that one didn’t grow up with oneself to make good and wise decisions to help in the way a court ought to help a society respond to the new questions that are going to arise from new technologies,” Kagan said.
For instance, a federal appeals court ruled this week that “liking” something on Facebook is a form of free speech — a decision that could potentially reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
When Brennen referenced that decision, Kagan joked, “My colleagues are like, ‘What’s Facebook?”
And being behind the times technologically was part of what Kagan found most surprising as she returned to the court as a justice 25 years after she served as a clerk.
Kagan also broadly addressed the role the court has had in major decisions about controversial acts of Congress, such as the Affordable Care Act — which the court largely upheld.
“The court, in the end, is the arbiter of where the political process has overrun the constitution improperly. And Trying to figure out what those lines are and where to defer and where not to defer is the hardest part of being a judge,” she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at mycn2.com ...
Uh...what?
Best and brightest.
I’m more worried that some of them are, like, Communist lesbians.
No, the court is an interpreter and true translator of the law. If a law is not constitutional then the court should send it back for constitutional amendment. Instead it legislates and “arbiters”, something not for the supremes to do but State Courts.
I can sorta see her point.
In the Øbamacare case roberts rendered a political response to a legal question in order to allow the scam to move forward. He saw where the lines were and trampled all over them anyway.
Indeed... Any arbitration not involving a jury is a sham decision of government voting and judging for its own sake as the French courts are loaded.
I would love see some of the blue blood a-holes at a Nascar race, a football game, or a county fair.
They really need to get out more.
Kagan ... ? Oh yeah, she’s one of the strictly political, unqualified dyke appointees. Not the wise latina, the bull.
Calling him a justice does not make him one. He will be an historic failure.
By their use of language thou shalt know them!
I suspect a few of them say,”What’s a Constitution?”
“good and wise decisions”
Wow. Like....FOLLOWING THE DAMN CONSTITUTION?????
How hard can that be, really?
Funny. Same phrasiology Obama used.
So Mizzz lezzie Kagan is in touch with technology? Like she has a iPad and iPhone? You cannot believe how impressed I am!
Indeed, to gloss over the blatant violations of free speech and assembly and business that Obamacare is and calling it a tax is full of sh!t.
Oh, and I wonder if he is a closet homosexual, because when he was being grilled by congress he had the most feminine voice. I said nothing, but maybe he is a BushJr vengeance for rebuking Harriet Meyers.
The problem is deeper than that. There is absolutely NOTHING which is Constitutional about Social Security. How does one argue the unconstitutionality of Obamacare without addressing the fact that most of what the federal government is presently doing is already unconstitutional?
I don't see any solution coming until the entire nation looks like Detroit.
Now, that's funny.
The problem stems from the early portion of the 1900s — they basically lost their spines over the threat of having the court packed and let the Executive & Legislative run roughshod over the Constitution. It is from that era that we get Wickard (which says that Congress can pass law regulating intrastate commerce because it has SOME impact on interstate commerce) and Scheneck (which holds that in wartime there are restrictions on speech which would not be permissible during peacetime… and that is why the First Amendment is of no effect).
Kagan joked, “My colleagues are like, ‘What’s Facebook?”
***
And I was all like isn’t she like so funny.
I remember a time when lawyers and judges had command of the English language. Of course, that was also a time when Supreme Court justices were not chosen for identity politics. If Ginsburg does retire, I guess she will be replaced by some member of the pedophile community.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.