General Interest > Tacitus' Realm

Heads up 1st amendment junkies

(1/2) > >>

BuzzKill:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amen ... nstitution

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=155661
 
It was President Obama's pick for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, who hired radical regulatory czar Cass Sunstein as a Harvard law professor.

 Kagan called Sunstein "the preeminent legal scholar of our time."

WND previously reported Sunstein drew up a "First Amendment New Deal" – a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves.

Pay Attention:
WND also reported that in a recently released book, "On Rumors," Sunstein argued websites should be obliged to remove "false rumors" while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such "rumors."

In the 2009 book, Sunstein cited as a primary example of "*absurd" and "*hateful" remarks, reports by "right-wing websites" alleging an association between President Obama and former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers.  [*Absurd=True ; *Hateful=Inconvenient]

Meanwhile, in a lengthy academic paper, Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban "conspiracy theorizing," WND reported.

Among the examples of speech that should be banned, Sustein offered, is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud. [This man is much offended by inconvenient truths]

Sunstein also recommended the government send agents to infiltrate "extremists who supply conspiracy theories" and disrupt the efforts of the "extremists" to propagate their theories.

Just yesterday, a video at Breitbart.com showed Sunstein proposing that Congress hold hearings about mandates to [Pay Attnetion] ensure websites post links to a diversity of views on issues.

Meanwhile, when it comes to other First Amendment issues, Kagan shows strong beliefs for court intervention in speech, going so far as to assert free speech should be weighed against "societal costs."

 in a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.

The paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and … actions infested with them," and she goes so far as to claim, "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States v. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

STICK YOUR HEADS IN THE SAND ON THIS ONE AND IT MAY SOON BE ALL OVER BUT THE CRYING.

Stonewall:
President Obama won the election. Fair and square. With that office comes the responsibility of nominating Supreme Court Justices.

He has picked Ms. Kagan. And, unless she is found wanting in some way, Cronyism or corruption... and she knows the law, then she gets on the court. It's that simple. The people have elected this President and I have seen nothing that prevents her being confirmed. Of course I may disagree with some of her known opinions, oh Well.

Hey, it has to be this way...

Anne Bonney:
I can't take too much of what WND publishes seriously.

BuzzKill:
I know how people feel about WND, but I have yet to see any thing they publish discredited. I mean, people go on about it's being bull shit, but actual examples of said bull shit are never produced.  Now, this doesn't apply to opinions expressed - anyone might hold a perfectly valid opinion that WND's opinion is bull shit. But factually - haven't seen them discredited.

As to the above story, you'll probably find it difficult to find it reported in the lame-stream press, but that doesn't make the story inaccurate, just under reported. You should be concerned about the under reporting of such significant constitutional issues and asking why the media you prefer hasn't covered this issue.  Maybe first, should you feel like putting the time into the effort, do your own research to confirm or discount whats reported here.  

That said, the lady seems nice enough. Doesn't seem to have the kind of experience one would expect; but that is hardly surprising considering who appointed her. And of course Stonewall is correct; There was an election and the winner gets to nominate their choice for open seats in federal courts. As McCain has so often pointed out: Elections have consequences.

Anne Bonney:
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2 ... iar09.html

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page