Kagan: HELL NO!!!
I just read Can Kagan Be Trusted to Defend the Constitution? in which Ross Kaminsky assembles the critical pieces of the nominee's attitude toward the First Amendment's free speech clause. I want you to follow that link to Human Events
Kaminsky points out how Kagan's arguments in important cases before the Supreme Court indicate an unacceptable lack of respect for the right of free expression. Crucial quotes from a paper she wrote amplify that concern. I am glad that Kaminsky posted a link to the paper, because I clicked it and saw its title. "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine" Since when do the ends justify the means? This quote was found on page 55 of the paper.
The realm of public expression may have too much of some kinds of speech, too little of others; some speakers may drown out or dominate their opposite numbers. Self-conscious redistribution of expressive opportunities seems the most direct way of correcting these defects and achieving the appropriate range and balance of viewpoint.
President Obama spoke to the graduates at Hampton University, giving us some clues.
And meanwhile, you’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- (laughter) -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.
Perhaps outlining some crucial points will make things clear for you.
- bombards us
- all kinds of content
- exposes us
- all kinds of arguments
- don’t always rank that high on the truth meter
- information becomes a distraction
- putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy
- too much of some kinds of speech
- drown out or dominate
- redistribution of expressive opportunities
- correcting these defects
- appropriate
- viewpoint.
- range
- balance
The President and his latest nominee to the Supreme Court are two nuts in a Socialist shell who seek legislation to criminalize criticism of their policies. That is exactly what the First Amendment is intended to prevent.
Those two nuts are not alone in that Socialist shell, they share it with Mark Lloyd, Obama's appointee to the FCC. Three years ago, he co-authored
"The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio". That screed asserts that there is too much Conservative speech on talk radio and suggests public policy changes to reduce Conservative speech, supplanting it with Socialist speech.
We are facing authoritarian demagogues who seek to overthrow our representative republic, replacing it with an autocracy. First, they must silence the guard dogs.
There are not enough Republicans in the Senate to block this nomination. Worse yet, they lack the resolve required, they are caving in. We have no recourse except to rise up and raise Hell. We must send a clear message to our Senators: Kagan is not fit to sit on the court: your vote for this nomination guarantees my vote against you in the next election cycle. Reverence for the rights enshrined in the Constitution is the most important qualification for a Supreme Court Justice; Kagan lacks it.
http://www.congress.org/ has a form you can use to send an email to your Senators. It is free and easy. I urge you to use it immediately.
|