"Judge" Kagen

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

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.

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 reresidents, 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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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).

Click to expand...

They're not afraid of their own belief system, just afraid the American public will
find out what that is!