Legal Progressive Doesn’t Know Meaning of Term ‘Legal Progressive’
**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers
Oh, of course she does, but how quickly even those with the highest formal educations can suddenly act like they were raised by wolves:
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan on Tuesday fought off Republicans who were trying hard to paint her as a liberal activist, saying she’d be a fair, open-minded justice and refusing to call herself a “legal progressive.”
“I honestly don’t know what that label means,” Kagan told Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama .
Sessions, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s top Republican, kept pressing the former Harvard Law School dean, quoting her colleagues to make the point. Kagan wouldn’t take the bait, though.
As Sessions pointed out in the confirmation hearing, as of last month, Joe Biden’s smartass chief of staff knew the meaning of the label “legal progressive”:
“Elena is clearly a legal progressive,” said Ron Klain, Vice President Joe Biden’s chief of staff and Kagan’s classmate at Harvard Law School in the 1980s. “She’s got a pragmatic perspective.”
As Dean of Harvard Law School, you’d think Kagan would have disallowed a label with which she’s so unfamiliar from being used in the description of the Harvard Law & Policy Review:
The Harvard Law & Policy Review provides a prominent forum for debate and discussion of innovative progressive and moderate legal policy ideas, analysis and proposals. The Review invites innovative approaches to policy challenges by progressive legal scholars, policymakers, and practitioners. HLPR serves as a nexus between the worlds of academia, policy-making, and practice, with a focus on promoting first-rate scholarship with practical application to societal challenges. HLPR is the official national journal of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS).
Naturally, Kagan’s dodge is part of the game people who can’t fess up to what they’re really about must play, but it’s the Republicans’ job to be prepared with proper follow-up material (passing concern — Orrin Hatch isn’t preoccupied with writing a song for Robert Byrd like he did for Teddy, is he?).
I’m not a lawyer, and the closest I’ve ever come to a courtroom is showing up for jury duty, but maybe Sessions should have replied, “A legal progressive… you know, somebody who, oh, I don’t know, thinks it’s okay for the government to defy the Constitution but who justifies the unconstitutionality with precedent from foreign laws while trying to alleviate the fears of Constitution zealots by expressing a degree of certainty that the government won’t enforce whatever it is they’re doing anyway.”
By the way, I’ve found no validity to the claim that Chuck Grassley was trying to get clues about Kagan’s sexual preference by asking her if she’s bummed Lilith Fair was cancelled.
**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Obama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts
May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
45 Comments
Senate finally passes a budget approves bill striking word ‘lunatic’ from federal law
May 24, 2012 11:22 AM by Doug Powers
191 CommentsStammertime: Jay Carney asked if Chicago protests have soured Obama’s support for OWS
May 23, 2012 07:44 PM by Doug Powers
54 Comments
S.E. Cupp, Hustler, and the four stages of conservative female abuse
May 23, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
142 CommentsPig Maher’s boy Bill Burton mocks my support of Hatch challenger Dan Liljenquist
May 23, 2012 11:37 AM by Michelle Malkin
32 CommentsFree speech blogburst: Show solidarity for targeted conservative bloggers; Update: It’s Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day; Donation fund for targets
May 23, 2012 05:59 AM by Michelle Malkin
78 Comments
Jaczko the Jerk: Harry Reid’s sexist crony gets the boot
May 23, 2012 05:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
31 CommentsPalin officially endorses desperate, clingy Orrin Hatch; time to rally around Dan Liljenquist
May 22, 2012 11:32 PM by Michelle Malkin
83 CommentsGOP Senators question upcoming $1 million Hawaiian conference for Ninth Circuit Court
May 21, 2012 03:12 PM by Doug Powers
152 Comments
Categories: Politics,Supreme Court
JustOneMinute
» Mama Also Said There Be Days Like ThisPundit & Pundette
» Patterico's chilling account of harassmentDaily Caller
» Documents likely contradict Warren’s claim of not knowing Harvard promoted her as minority
It sure is easier on people if you just spell out the meanings of your terms rather than making people guess. A lesson I hope Sessions and Rags both could take to heart.
A recommendation you might also want to take to heart.
Elena Kagan wasn’t raised by wolves, but she’s been hanging out with a pack of them for the last few decades of her professional career. All those years working for Bill Clinton taught her how to tell a lie as convincingly as she can. She doesn’t know what philosophy legal progressives espouse, and I’m not sure where Brooklyn is…or what the meaning of “is” is.
Bush Doctrine
Legal Progressive
Is
Just words.
Well, let’s see, corporations are owned by actual people, are they not?
Say, The New York Times is owned by a corporation. Does that mean it’s fair game for government censorship?
And since you brought up the framers, it’s fair to say that, to a man (including Hamilton and Adams), they would have been at a loss to identify that clause in the Constitution that gave the federal government power over political campaigns in the first place.
Huh? Cows are owned by people too. Does that mean the rights a person possess transfer to Bessie?
Let me say that there is a fair argument that a corporation, as an entity, should have at least some of the same rights as a person. And in many areas of the law they are treated the same. However, it is certainly not a question which isn’t up for debate.
I’d bet it would be fair to say that each of the framers could look up Article 1, Section 4.
There is nothing in the Constitution that restricts the rights of a group of private citizens in terms of speech.
Unless the power is explicitly granted in the Constitution, no government entity has the right to restrict speech. This is as it should be, because once you limit speech, you are licensing speech.
So Chap who determines who gets the licenses? The “DISCLOSE” act restricts corporate speech, but not the speech of organizations like unions. The path this leads to could not be clearer.
Who makes the call on speech by the KKK, Nazi Party, AIr America, Rush Limbaugh, SEIU, Socialist Workers Party, the Methodist Church, the NRA, Media Matters, etc. etc.
Who determines what is hate speech? In Canada my expression of religious faith is considered hate speech.
What leftists never understand is people always will vote and express themselves. They can vote with their feet. If they are silenced that can still express themselves; sometimes that means of expression involves high explosives. But them liberals are blind to unintended consequences.
Limitation of speech has nothing to do with fairness. It has everything to do with the application of power by arrogant, corrupt people who feel superior to their neighbors.
A corporation is not simply a group of private citizens. It is its own separate entity.
This clause has nothing to do with speech. It deals with the mechanics of the election process. Again, a perfect example of attempting to magic something that is not explictily stated in the COnstitution.
Find one statement by a Founding Father that encourages or supports limiting speech as part of an election campaign. I believe you will find they will actually express quite the opposite.
Do you think the cops have the right to stop a person if he is shouting through a bullhorn from the sidewalk outside your house at 3am, commenting on horrible things he wants to do with your wife?
It this definition contained within the Constituion? It does not matter what a corportion is. No judge, no legislator, no President has the power to restrict the civil right of a person or a group.
Three people can create a coporation. Is their speech to be restricted? If not, then who determines the threshold? It does not matter. If there is a threshold you are licensing speech. The government does not have the power to license speech.
And money is a big part of the “mechanics” of an election, no? The only reason we are at this point is because the Supreme Court ruled that money is speech, even though I don’t see that in the Constitution anywhere. The Buckley court must have “magicked” that in too.
Not true. A state grants a corporation its legal existence. A corporation does not exist without the blessing of the state.
As much as a man can yell “fire” in a crowded theatre. As much as someone advocating the violent overthrow of the United States. As much as a man who is threatening to kill me.
That’s why the thoughts of Thomas Paine on such topics were contained in a work called, “Common Sense.”
This is an entirely different situation from each of those counter examples. Each of those examples leads to imminent danger. My situation does not. It is simply really annoying to you.
But, while we are on it, how do you feel about those examples you posed? How should we treat all those other posters here that advocate for the violent overthrow of the US?
What a total and complete distortion. Unless a coprporation is in violation of some statute the government has no power to restrict the formation of a coporation.
Chap what you are implying is if a person wants to incorporate start a fast food chain, the government can deny them the right to incorporate, because in their opinion we have enough of them.
Does the government determine how many law offices should legally exist?
I see, if someone does what you describe my wife should not feel threatened with pysical or sexual assault. Yep, no imminent danger there.
Again, common sense. There is no comparison between political speech and a lunatic standing in the dark screaming.
Do you know anything about corporate law? Do you think you can just go to your computer, print up some Flyoverman, Inc. stock certificates and call yourself a corporation?
States tend not to restrict the formation of corporations in their state, but that certainly doesn’t mean they can’t. Usually they do it through restrictions on necessary licenses.
Oh, he is entirely clear that he merely WANTS to, but that he would never force himself on her.
Or, if that is bothering you, just imagine he is reciting the Constitution to you at 120db.
Except that your blanket rule covers both of them equally.
I’d keep an eye on them. They threaten the Constituion.
Personally, they are idiots, no better than the “evil people” they oppose.
Hey Chap, I need to retire. Thanks for the debate and exchange of ideas. I learn things everytime I read your posts and see your exchanges. Glad to have you on this site. Good night.
Its only 11:40!!!
Where is your dedication?
Oh and by the way, the practice of law is one of the most highly restricted and regulated out there. How many other professions do you have to pass an objective test, pass as subjective ethics inquiry and background check, pay annual dues, subject yourself to the jurisdiction of a completely separate judicial panel, and pay into a fund that compensates victims of other people’s malfeasance?
If there were nothing else in her background, this bit of history by itself should be enough to disqualify her.
Communists are some of the best liars as well as women.
Her phony, annoying laugh sounds almost like Hillary’s.
So phony!!
These hearings should stipulate that nominees are required to answer Constitutional questions clearly and directly or automatically be disqualified.
I am late on this thread, but our moderator and others can’t see the forest for the trees.
Ms. Kagan knows what the concept is, but she chose to employ what I see as a very brillant dodge to the question, and perhaps defusing the issue in the process.
Not that I look forward to her sitting on SCOTUS got God knows how many decades, but it was a brillant parry.
“These hearings should stipulate”
I think what needs to happen is if once on the bench they make a decision that is diametrically opposed to their testimony they are removed from the bench. At best they lied under oath during their testimony.
The lack of accountability and continuity means these hearings are theater and nothing more.
If held responsible based on their testimony once on the bench THEN maybe these hearings may have weight.
“If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck.”
GSP
It means that the First Amendment rights of Bessie’s owner to use Bessie for the purpose of expression (apart from content-neutral laws regarding animal cruelty and public health and things like that) do not disappear simply because Bessie isn’t a person.
By the way, you never answered my question about The New York Times. Would it be constitutional for the government to censor that corporate publication?
That clause is about rules for holding elections. It’s not about rules for running campaigns. There’s a pretty big difference. Again, if you’re resting your case on the views of the framers, I think you’d know just as well as I do that they’d be aghast at the notion that that clause gives Congress the power to rgulate political speech well in advance of election day.
Now you’re talking about a content-neutral restriction on his behavior. Here, it doesn’t matter what he’s saying or even if he’s saying anything intelligible. The issue is that he’s making 120 db of noise at 0300. Nothing at all to do with what he’s saying.
You still are not understanding that a corporation is an entity entirely distinct from its owner, or at least it should be. That is the essential essence and advantage of the corporate form. When a corporation purports to engage in campaign activity, that is NOT saying that the owners of the corporation are doing it through the corporation as an instrumentality. THE CORPORATION ITSELF IS ACTING. If you do not understand that very basic, and very important distinction, then please just stop talking now. You can argue that a corporation should have its own first amendment right, and indeed, this is what the courts have decided. But the reason for that is most definitely not because the owners of the corporation are simply using the corporation as a tool to exercise their own rights.
Huh? Hardly. Don’t know if you are aware of how elections work, but let me fill you in. Campaigns are a part of an election. You can have no campaign without an election (though you could have an election with no campaigns). If Congress is given the right to regulate the whole (the election) certainly that means it has a right to regulate the component parts of that election (the campaigns, the vote tabulation, qualifications for voting, etc…).
Of course I am. But forgive me for a moment. Could you please point to the part of the First Amendment that says restrictions on speech are okay, so long as they are content neutral? I thought it said “Congress shall make NO LAW”, not “Congress shall make no content neutral law.”
So…It becomes more and more apparent that Kagan is a perfidious little…um…person, who never allows the facts (i.e., truth) to get in the way, in addition to being adverse to our military while being friendly to Islamism.
Sound familiar…???
Hey Rags, have that citation for me yet?
Hey, Chaps, still too lazy to augment your understanding?
Oh believe me, I have searched for some sort of meaning that would in any way make sense (to a rational person, in any case) in the context of which you were speaking.
But I expect nothing less than avoidance and obfuscation from you. I fear your mind has become as addled and messy as your blog looks. I didn’t know it was physically possible to incorporate so many different fonts, sizes and colors into one paragraph.
Well, Kagan doesn’t know the meaning of the term “Constitution” either so why are we surprised that she doesn’t know “Legal Progressive.”
She is clearly going to dance around without answering any substantive questions and get herself appointed to SCOTUS. She could stand up and proclaim herself to be a Lesbian, Marxist Jihadist and still get confirmed. In fact, she would probably get MORE Dim-o-crat support if she did so!
One of the more aggravating aspects of this charade is how utterly inept the GOP congresscritters are as they “question” this woman. Two words: TERM.LIMITS!
The woman clearly has no interest or intention in supporting and defending the actual constitution of the United States but, then again, neither did Sotomayor…
Thanks for stopping by, Chaps.
I will take your criticism under advisement, and give it all the weight it deserves.
Well, well, well, look who’s working out in the mental gym again this morning – none other than Chaps! I would’ve thought that after yesterday’s routine, your mental muscles would be too fatigued from the stress and strain of twisting facts, curling distortions and distracting somersaults to fit in another day.
Just to illustrate what a liar you are, Chaps…
2 a : of, relating to, or constituting a name (as in Supreme Court, meaning the final authority on Constitutional interpretation under normal circumstances; as in “denominated“.
5 : being according to plan (as in “Constitutional”, or the design of our charter of central government)
From the obscure http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nominal
Thank you for your participation in my demonstration of your integrity.
Please do. I fear you are only a mental breakdown or two away from this.
Wait…
You make up all of that extra commentary to the end of the definition of 2a, trying to squeeze in a tortured usage which is at best hardly plausible and hardly self evident, and you are calling ME a liar?
I refer you to the reply given in Arkell and Pressdram.
And I love how you have to wallow all the way down to alternate meaning 5 and then STILL have to torture the intent of the definition to conform to your stupid usage.
From the ACTUAL definition:
5 : being according to plan : satisfactory
How the hell do you go from “satisfactory” to “as in “Constitutional”, or the design of our charter of central government”?
As I recall, I wasn’t the one claiming that Kagen wants to “ban books” based on a statement that that didn’t involve banning books and wasn’t even made by her in the first place.
But, hey…I may have spent too much time staring at Rag’s hot mess of a blog, got hypnotized and had that particular memory erased.
I will rely on the sound reading ability of those here, Chaps.
You are appearing now to be one of these as you spin.
On the subject of my blog, let me invite everyone here to drop by to see if you agree with Chap’s comparison.
Comments always welcome.
Yes, I understand the legal theory behind it. My comments had more to do wtih the underlying reality.
And you still haven’t answered my question about The New York Times.
No, absolutely not. No more than oral arguments before a judge are part of his ruling. An election is when the people cast their ballots.
Lots of things are dependent on other things for their existence. That doesn’t mean they’re not distinct things.
Qualifications for voting? What case established Congress’s power over this? Last I recall, amendments were needed to give blacks and women the right to vote, lower the voting age to 18, etc. That’s because the Constitution says that voters “shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.”
Regulating elections is regulating the process of voters choosing who represents them, and obtaining an accurate determination of that choice. What happens beforehand is not part of the election.
By the way, even if your formulation were correct, this would still give Congress no power over presidential election campaigns. The clause you quoted from pertains only to congressional elections.
If it’s content-neutral, then it’s not a restriction on speech, because speech is all about the content. It’s like saying that pulling over the driver of a green car for running a red light is somehow a restriction on green cars. It’s not, because the traffic laws are hue-neutral.
Blackstone, you are wrong on just about every single thing you posted. I am on an iPod, so it is difficult to go into too much detail, but let me start out with your absolutely wrong interpretation of content neutral restrictions. The court has always treated them as restrictions on speech. Indeed one cannot have speech without both content AND physical expression, so to restrict either content or means of expression is a restriction in speech. That is both entirely self evident and the position of constitutional scholarship. Content neutral restrictions on time place and manner are treated more leniently than content-based restrictions (and i am more than happy to go over those as well), mostly because there must always be alternative outlets for the speech, but make no mistake that they are both restrictions on speech.
Let me now take your “oral argument” and “decision” analogy. It is wrong. It would properly be framed as:
Election=trial
Oral Arguments=campaign
Decision=actual vote.
And you better believe that oral arguments are a part of the trial and that rules of civil or criminal procedure (which regulate ALL aspects of the trial from start to finish) control aspects of oral arguments.
chapoutier: “Herd of cows? Of course I’ve heard of cows!”
And your New York Times censorship question is moot. I concede that corporations have certain constitutional rights, in any case, including speech. However, freedom of the press is not the same as freedom of speech and the term “press” clearly implies institutional entities, as opposed to just individuals. There is not such a clear cut implication to an institutional level when discussing speech.
Hearings: Lindsay Graham’s soft and squishy body language just now tells me he will vote to confirm. He delivered a softball that Kagan hit out of the park. This guy is something else.
So you do or do not think Congress has the power to pass a law requiring identification at the voting booth, were they so inclined?
Perhaps my use of “qualification” was in error. I think the examples you give do better express voting “qualifications”. I was referring more to, for lack of a better term, voting “requirements”. Such as voter ID laws. Or things like access to voting booths, use of monitors, etc…
See… unlike some people, I can admit when I use a term improperly and/or stupidly.
Interesting that Chaps plays this game of baiting people into answering his questions on his terms, instead of simply making declarative statements…say in support of Kagan.
For any of you interested in authoritatively answering the question on voter qualifications…er…”requirements”…or something…
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-149656282.html
I made plenty of declarative statements, Rags.
I stated two examples where I thought Doug was wrong in his criticism of Kagen
I stated your interpretation of the term “nominal” was asinine.
I stated your blog is way too busy with font, character, color and style changes.
I don’t recall anyone asking me whether I support Kagen or not. Perhaps you could find it form me. Also while we are on the topic of answering or not answering questions, you left this one hanging from a few weeks back:
Odd, but I find it comforting to note that Chappy used “crapload” to modify “UN Security Council resolutions.”
“Crapload” is one of the most apt descriptions of the UN. From “oil for food” to “peacekeeping” operations the UN is an utterly failed institution.
The US should withdraw all financial support, remove our representatives from all UN organizations and have our Security Council representative vote against any and every action taken by the UN. And we should invite them to relocate from New York City to their other offices in Switzerland.
The UN has become a horrible charade run by thugs from all over the world.
By that logic, literally every law on the books infringes on freedom of speech, because there isn’t an action you can name that someone couldn’t conceive as a means of expressing a point.
In any event, it’s moot, because the Citizens United case was about a law that was most definitely not content-neutral.
BZZZT. Wrong. The election is the actual vote. Election day is the day on which the vote takes place. Trial day is not the day on which the verdict is rendered, or the sentence handed down.
No, as with all of our other rights, it clearly implies an action, not particular persons or institutions (which is why “journalistic shield laws” are complete BS). Printing up pamphlets urging voters to vote a certain way is just as much “press” as printing newspapers reporting the latest stock values, regardless of who or what is doing it.
By the way, any ideas on what clause in the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate anything about presidential election campaigns?
I’m not so sure about this.
I think I might agree with Blackstone.
Election = decision.
I don’t think election = trial.
Care to argue this more and try to convince me otherwise?
Huh? That does not follow at all. If you are just thinking something in your head, is that speech? Nope. If you randomly wave around a blank sign, is that speech? Nope. You must have both. And a restriction on either, according to the law, is a restriction on speech. If you spent half the time looking at the caselaw and scholarship on this as you did arguing the point with me, you would know that.
corkie, it seems pretty obvious to me. You don’t show up at a voting booth that magically appeared out of nowhere on November 3rd, and choose a person whose name magically appeared on a ballot that magically appeared. There is an entire process that leads up to the vote and it seems obvious that vote is only the final step of that election, not the election in and of itself.
Care to try to convince me otherwise?
Then the vote would not be the final step either. Perhaps the swearing in would be the final step.
Actually, the “election” is still just the actual voting and tallying of the votes. It is one part of the “election process” which culminates in the swearing in.
Perhaps there used to be a time where the election process started and stoppped. Now it seems to never end, meaning also that it never begins. The “campaign” for the 2012 election was going on during the last Presidential election. Politicians need to set these things up well in advance to gain the momentum needed.
Obama has been campaiging for most of his life. He certainly escalated it when he made his speech during the 2004 Democratic convention. The Democrat party was setting him up as their future star.
The election process never begins or stops. And I never say never.
On June 29th, 2010 at 11:05 pm,
Chap,
From what you wrote above, could you not apply the same concept to political parties, or lobbyist groups? What is the line between a group of citizens and a group acting as an entity? Or a corporation vs. a vastly rich person?
A bit of a sticky wicket here…
Then I’ll give you an example. If you use kerosene to trace out the words “Vote for Chappy” on the side of someone’s house, and then strike a match to make it shine really bright for everyone to see, you’ll be prosecuted for arson. It doesn’t matter that you were committing arson in order to convey a message. No one in his right mind would call that a restriction on speech, because the “speech” part is completely irrelevant to the reason why you’re being prosecuted.
Egads, that’s like saying that a trial begins when the cornerstone of the courthouse is first put in place.
By the way, just in case anyone’s still confused…
You are wrong. Anyone, well at least any SC judge that knew what they were talking about would call that a restriction on speech. But they, and anyone with any sense, would also call a prohibition on arson in the expression a reasonable restriction in speech because it is content neutral and there are many many alternative means of expression for the content. If you don’t think that this very issue (i.e. illegal acts as part of expression) have come up in the context of First Amendment jurisprudence, then you are simply reaffirming your ignorance on the subject. You may be even shocked to find out, if you actually took the time to learn, that the Court has, on occasion, ruled in favor of the free speech even if an illegal act occurred incidental to the expression.
Listen, you simply do not know what you are talking about. I have actually studied this. You, clearly, have not. You probably heard Beck or Limbaugh mention “content neutral” in passing on their radio show once and think you are an expert now. For your own sake, just stop.
And, wrt voting booths, you clearly have no concept of the issues and rules that must he followed, and are continually changing, wrt where polling stations must be located, how many booths must be available at each location, the accessability of said locations, etc..
It is a moving target in each election that starts well before the final vote, and sometimes endured afterward as well.
Nothing like “laying the cornerstone” to a courthouse.
Well, there you have it folks. Chappaquidickless has declared you stupid and ignorant and therefore wrong, and himself wise and all-knowing and therefore right. End of argument.
I have a few problems with Corporations and any organization being allowed to make “Political Contributions”.
Number one on the list is why would anyone in their right mind allow an entity which is not allowed to vote to influence the political process by making massive “Contributions”?
When you look at the amount of money, and the result of these payments, it is clear to me that it is nothing more than legal bribes.
Why do people think a Corporation would spend outrageous amounts of money for no benefit to that company? They invest in political favors, plain and simple. Consider the fact that $10 million in political contributions to a large corporation ($20 million plus profit) actually costs them $13,500,000 cash. They are buying favors.
In my opinion, only individuals, who are registered to vote should be allowed to make political donations and the amounts should be severely limited. Something like $20 per person per year would be about right. Every registered voter should have equal opportunity to influence the political process, no bundling, no organizations donating to any political party or candidate.
Also, no politician should be allowed to raise or receive contributions more than 12 months before an election for which they are on the ballot (even one of the most corrupt cities in the US, Washington DC, has this rule, bt oddly not our Congress). This spending 80% plus of their time fundraising for the party must stop. They were elected to do a job and that is not to raise money.
Any violation should result in removal from office and lifetime ban from any elected or appointed office, as well as loss of any and all benefits from political office, and of course very big fines, up to 50 times the illegal funds received.
Politicians are given vast amounts of power and responsibility with no liability. Their only liability, in most cases, is to lose the next election. That must change, they need to be held to the highest standards and face removal and prosecution for dereliction of duty. Something they enforce on others but not themselves.
The United States used to be world leaders. Now, our politicians have reduced us to followers. Following other countries in bad policies, bad laws, huge debt, and political coruption. They have abused the public trust for far too long. It is time for the public to force politicians to do their jobs with honesty and integrety and act in the best interest of the country.
That’s not convincing enough.
Just because there are separate processes to prepare for an election (e.g. choosing polling stations and populating a ballot) doesn’t mean that those preparations are the election.
I can wash my juice glasses at 10:00pm at night. That doesn’t mean that my washing should be considered breakfast. Breakfast is eaten the next morning.
We are known by the friends we make and the company we keep.
I believe the statement is applicable to her because it is candidly expressive of the mentality and group think that exists w/in the social sphere of Upper East Side snobs and elites with whom she associates.
No, no, no, you don’t get it. Chap has “actually studied this”. Apparently his studies never involved opening up a dictionary, though.
And the supreme irony of all? I guarantee you he’s pro-abortion.
I said I studied First Amendment law, doofus. I am willing to concede that the whole “election vs. campaign” thing is more an issue of semantics but one in which I truly think the most logical position is mine. You are just plain, verifiably wrong with respect to the First Amendment.
Are you trying to analogize pregnancy to an election (or campaign then election, whatver floats your boat)? Seriously?
I think this conversation has run its course. I recommend you read up on some case law, starting with Schneider v. State, Martin v. City of Struthers and Kovacs v. Cooper.
Well, well, well, someone’s getting a little testy. Anway, I’m sure you’ve read plenty of commentary on the 1st Amendment, but you don’t appear to have given it any kind of critical thought. Since you brought up the framers, I’ll just tell you that I highly doubt a single one of them would have been dipsh**ted enough to think that laws against arson infringe on freedom of speech.
No. Semantic issues come up when there’s at least one other logical way to read a particular word or phrase. In your case, there is none. Campaigns are not part of the election. It is simply not correct usage, and moreover it’s not even consonant with the spirit of that clause in the Constitution for Congress to regulate campaigns. That clearly goes against the letter and intent of the First Amendment.
I am not the dips*** that does not understand that an action, such as arson, is not in and of itself speech. It is merely an action. Arson could certainly be used in speech, if there was an obvious message behind it. Think of cross burning. But our freedom of speech does not trump illegal activities if the statute is content neutral and leaves alternate means of expression.
Take one of those cases I cited you. It dealt with a person handing out leaflets, which was in violation of an anti-littering law. The court actually found in this case that the right to free speech trumped the criminal statute. In another one of the case dealing with a bullhorn that violated noise ordinances, that it did not. Do you know what aspect was absolutely consistent between both cases and even between the majority and dissenting positions in each? EVERYONE RECOGNIZED IT AS AN INFRINGEMENT ON SPEECH! EVERYONE! The only question was whether it was a permissible content neutral time place and manner restriction. So…when considering whether or not I have given any critical thought to the issue, shall I go with 18 supreme Court Justices from across the ideological spectrum on one hand or Blackstone das Wundertard who is apparently too lazy to google anything on the subject on the other?
And the way “handbills” were defined in the statute (“any hand-bill, dodger, commercial advertising circular, folder, booklet, letter, card, pamphlet, sheet, poster, sticker, banner, notice or other written, printed or painted matter calculated to attract attention of the public”) sounds to me like it has something to do with the actual content.
Is that so? From Jackson’s concurrence: “Freedom of speech for Kovacs does not, in my view, include freedom to use sound amplifiers to drown out the natural speech of others.”
And Frankfurter: “So long as a legislature does not prescribe what ideas may be noisily expressed and what may not be, nor discriminate among those who would make inroads upon the public peace, it is not for us to supervise the limits the legislature may impose in safeguarding the steadily narrowing opportunities for serenity and reflection.”
Time for a remedial course, Chaps.
Oh, this is rich. Out of those three lengthy cases, you were unable to find a single quote that supported your position? And instead of just keeping quiet like a good little beaten down lad, you try to shoehorn in two quotes that say the exact opposite of what you are proposing!
Notice both of them say “FREEDOM of speech does not include…” As in the freedom of your– wait for it…wait for it…!!!SPEECH!!! does not extend to this circumstance! The very term presupposes the existence of “speech”, you moron! How can you put a limit on the freedom of something if you do not even recognize the existence of that thing in the first place? If they would have said “Speech does not include…” then you may have had a point, but you didn’t find that did you? You know why? BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG!
I was all prepared to go into a detailed discussion of how the court utilizes a First Amendment analysis of the situation, thus clearly demonstrating that they, by definition, approach the situation as a restriction on speech, but you have proven my point even more succinctly than that.
Time for a remedial course in basic reading comprehension, Blackstone.
Care to point to the part of definition where it is limited to a certain type of content? Or care to point to the part of the case where they conclude that the restriction was not content neutral?
chap, help me out here.
I haven’t read every comment in this fragmented thread, so I’m not entirely clear about everyone’s argument.
In an earlier comment in this thread you claimed that the Supreme Court was the final arbiter of Constitutionality.
In another comment you questioned whether the framers intended corporations to be treated the same as actual people.
Well, since the Supreme Court has ruled that a corporation may be treated the same as actual people, doesn’t that imply that the Supreme Court has interpreted that the Constitution is open to the concept? And if the Constitution is open to the concept, doesn’t that imply that the framers of the Constitution were open to the concept?
So, maybe a better question is whether the framers intended to disallow corporations to be treated the same as actual people. What would your answer be?
Not at all. All it presupposes is that someone claimed his speech was being restricted. If his speech is being restricted, then his freedom of speech is being restricted.
I’m not the one having problems with reading comprehension here.
I never said it was limited to a certain type of content. But the definition still had to to with content.
By the way, in the sound truck case, Frankfurter was perhaps even more explicit than Jackson. When he said “it is not for us to supervise” general laws for enforcing a tranquil environment, he’s making a pretty categorical statement that these laws don’t even presumptively violate the 1st Amendment.
I don’t see why that would follow. I simply don’t think the framers could anticipate every legal scenario that would arise, nor were they trying to.
I think original intent has its place. My original point in bringing up the framers is that people seem to think the Citizens United case righted some great wrong with respect to free speech. It only applies to corporations. I don’t think anyone out here would argue that corporations have a right to free speech based on natural law or other similar notion. Nor is it at all clear from the plain text of the Constitution. But commenters here have been treating this right as some sort of inviolable notion on par with the Ten Commandments. So far as I can tell, though, it only emanates from statutory (1 U.S.C. Sec. 1) and a bunch of hotly debated (and contradictory) Supreme Court cases throughout our history.
Yet again, you fail to recognize that saying something is not a violation of the First Amendment is not the same as saying something is not a restriction on free speech. If you wish to continue to stupidly cling to this notion that time place and manner restrictions are not restrictions on speech, then you could simply turn your blind eye to the many CONTENT SPECIFIC restrictions on speech (like pornography, fighting words, commercial speech) that have been found to not be violations of the First Amendment. I guess now you will make some asinine argument that, because Justice Marshall but an i before an e but NOT after a c, that this means those examples weren’t really dealing with speech either.
You have proven again and again to be ignorant of even the most basic concepts in this area. And yet you expect anyone, let alone me, to take you seriously?
Again, ignorant of a basic concept with respect to Supreme Court jurisprudence. Justices do not rule on more than they have to. Why would they “there is no violation of freedom of speech” when they actually meant “there is no speech”? Words are these people trade and they do not use them superfluously, especially when the meaning of what they are saying is so fundamentally altered (at least for anyone with basic reading comprehension skills) by those words.
If they thought that there was no actual speech here, they could have dismissed the case in less than 2 sentences. Did it ever occur to you why these cases are not so short? No, I suppose not. Because you have long since abandoned actually thinking and understanding in a stubborn attempt to not be wrong.
Your ignoring part of the issue. This case wasn’t merely about corporations being granted free speech. This is about the speech of entities being regulated by election regulations.
Plenty of non-person, for-profit entities make movies and publish books that affect election outcomes all the time. Should all those movies and books be banned?
Don’t try to use the narrow scope of this ruling to imply that justice wasn’t done.