Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: "Judge" Kagen

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    I normally do not bring other things into the forum, however, this seems important. Kagan has clearly has a very strange (and non-liberal) point of view in which she claims that the government can restrict speech if it "could" cause harm.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/65720

    How is this OpenCarry related? If speech can cause harm, then the next possibility would be that opencarrying a gun could cause harm.

    Something to think about.

    Best,
    Pace

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    If it is anon-liberal viewpoint, who came up with the fairness docrine? (liberals)

    Who are now trying to restrict freedom of speech on the internet including that evil x-box. (liberals)

    Why is the FCC now trying to regulate the internet?

    And it does affect things, they are afraid of free speech. Look at this cite for example we now have thousands of folks open carrying across the U.S. in a very short period of time because of the access to information. TEA party and Ron Paul both used the internet as their main means of communicating their messages.

    We are able to check and search and find out that what we learn from propaganda media (yes including Fox) is not really what happened or what is really just the facts.

    Groups like SAF and NRA have also been a little disappointed that true 2A supporters have been able to do this.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    It's a real shame such poor-quality/no-experience people are even being CONSIDERED for the highest court in the land, let alone picked for same. It's an insult to the office of the US Supreme Court to put less than the verybest people America has on it.

    Yetthat's true re:Presidents, too, in that such poor quality/low-grade people (moral character, integrity, honesty) even run for that highest office, let alone win. Then you have one unqualifed nobody appointing other unqualified nobodies to assorted offices/cabinet posts...all at great negative consequence to the nation.

    I am disappointed America can't (or won't) do better.

    -- John D.
    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  4. #4
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786

    Post imported post

    As to the experience issue, I heard the other day on NPR that when Republican presidents have considered Supreme Court nominees they usually appoint someone who has lots of judicial experience, and who has strong outspoken conservative ideas. Democrats, on the other hand, usually nominate someone who has little record and no spoken opinions on important subjects, almost as if they are afraid of their own belief system.

    Do you think there's any truth to that? If so, I don't see how that could do anything but keep the court shifted toward the conservative (which, even though I lean a little left, I think is the proper place for the highest court to be).
    There was a time that the pieces fit, but I watched them fall away, mildewed and smoldering, strangled by our coveting. I've done the math enough to know the dangers of our second guessing. Doomed to crumble, unless we grow and strengthen our communication. -Tool, "Schism"

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Any appointment would be a lot less of an issue if we actually took advantage of the impeachment process and impeached justices when they deserve it. AFAIK, you can even be impeached from the court on moral grounds, not just deriliction of duty.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Limiting Free Speech is OK if the government's motives are pure?

    Bad idea. Once the Court is packed with five people who like the current government's motives, Free Speech is dead.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    Limiting Free Speech is OK if the government's motives are pure?

    Bad idea. Once the Court is packed with five people who like the current government's motives, Free Speech is dead.
    Been down that road before; what didFDR do? However; that's not what I'd advocate.

    I'd advocate that any justice who makes a decision on a matter of politics instead of a matter of law be impeached.

    Their job isn't to look to the future to see what effects their decision will have; that's judicial activism,it is to look to the past and make the decision that is in conformance with the purpose of the constitution.


    ETA: I think most of the current justices would be gone if we did this. After a few rounds of impeachments any justice that would take up the position would learn though, and that's the point.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Brass Magnet wrote:

    I'm advocating that any justice who makes a decision on a matter of politics instead of a matter of law be impeached.

    Their job isn't to look to the future to see what effects their decision will have; that's judicial activism,it is to look to the past and make the decision that is in conformance with the purpose of the constitution.
    Bingo!!!!! I have been saying that for years itworries me that they vote strictly along party lines.

    Yet of course we have had unconstitutional decisions by SCOTUS that have had major effects on our society. Like the Unissued Machinge gun tax stamp and unissued Marijuana tax stamp. Creating huge unconstitutional, tax sucking organizations like , BATFE and DEA etc.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    mcdonalk wrote:
    As to the experience issue, I heard the other day on NPR that when Republican presidents have considered Supreme Court nominees they usually appoint someone who has lots of judicial experience, and who has strong outspoken conservative ideas. Democrats, on the other hand, usually nominate someone who has little record and no spoken opinions on important subjects, almost as if they are afraid of their own belief system.

    Do you think there's any truth to that? If so, I don't see how that could do anything but keep the court shifted toward the conservative (which, even though I lean a little left, I think is the proper place for the highest court to be).
    They're not afraid of their own belief system, just afraid the American public will
    find out what that is!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •