Kagan: Speech is free if government decides it has more value than 'societal costs -UPDATED'

page: 3
71
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
The Goldman Sachs connection poisons the nomination in my opinion.

That's like nominating someone who once worked with Al Qaeda....

I would also expect that anyone who feels that the categorical value of words can be determined should be pressured to reveal the metric by which they measure free expression - and how they 'value' societal cost.

But our Senators and Congressmen rarely foray into anything that is too 'deep'; usually preferring to go by mega-media's collection of celebrity information to determine what is or isn't objectionable.


How many individuals in this administration are now linked with a deep Goldman Sachs connection? You would think big corporations that controll our government would like to stay in the shadows.

I guess that is why Obama had to come out and condone 24/7 news medias including blogs who make information available before it can be manipulated to hide the shadow entities.




posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
I can see a future when a president appoints a guy saying that porn's great and loves it. I also see one in which a "wise white man" claims he has something special that minorities don't understand about. The things that have been said have created double standards that will undo civility, Obama has lowered the court to his state of biased thinking and has brought the country to a more debased form of discussion....and then they have the nerve to call for sanctions on speech or that the internet has too much information, come on man, you can't fool anyone anymore, you never fooled me, I think Obama will be exposed in a way that also ruined Clinton...which explains why he wants to control the net. I guess it won't be so easy after Nov?

She clearly does not qualify for anything other than an academic positions where she mostly deals with teenagers and putting them down with her faculty friends. If a person goes against the constitution they go against the public, she appears to want to do so, so she will be promoted by Obama.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
I'm just shaking my head here. Really. I heard so much about Bush trampling Constitutional rights the last couple of years. Where are those people now yelling at Obama? He's the one nominating this tyrant to the Supreme Court.

How many of you who voted for Obama are seriously re-thinking that decision or seriously want your vote back?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by prionace glauca
 


Goldman Sachs, Fannie and Freddie. Their former executives are effectively taking over with Obama as their willing servant. They picked him, he did not pick them. They took over the Democratic Party. I think Hillary was ousted because she would not play ball. I'd think the traditional Democrats would be very pissed off by now. Their Party is being destroyed by these radicals.

I have no sympathy however if they don't have the guts to stand up and say we made a mistake. We were tricked.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by prionace glauca
 


LOL...this is the first time I agree with you 100%. This lady scares the bejebus out of me!


In my opinion she is a enemy of the United States of the America and its Constitution.

All people in Government are sworn to uphold the constitution. So I have faith in those in high places that they wont let such become reality.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by Theone2000]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by prionace glauca


Chief Justice Roberts: Kagan Asked Court to 'Embrace Theory of First Amendment That Would Allow Censorship Not Only of Radio and Television Broadcasts, But Pamphlets and Posters'

(CNSNews.com) - Solicitor General Elena Kagan, nominated Monday to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama, told that court in September that Congress could constitutionally prohibit corporations from engaging in political speech such as publishing pamphlets that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.

Kagan’s argument that the government could prohibit political speech by corporations was rejected by a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in that case, and in a scathing concurrence Chief Justice John Roberts took direct aim at Kagan’s argument that the government could ban political pamphlets.





www.washing tonexaminer.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 11-5-2010 by prionace glauca]


Whoa whoa whoa... we MUST REMEMBER that corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE. Yes, they have been effectively granted the rights of personhood (without many of the responsibilities/punishments) and this is exactly WHY they've been able to control our government.

That ruling AGAINST corporate "free speech" is a GOOD THING! Free speech belongs to THE PEOPLE and not the special interests of corporations who undeniably have different ideas of democracy and good government than the citizenry does.

Let's not forget to take this into context, she was actually DEFENDING our freedom when she ruled to limit the "free speech" of corporations, which essentially isn't free speech but the ability of corporations to control/influence OUR elections to serve their own desires and profits. They already have FAR too much power to do so now, they need to be more RESTRICTED rather than freer to take over our elections/government. A corporation has far greater financial power over such institutions than any member of the populace or even organized non-profit grassroots political groups. Corporations have NO BUSINESS making political pamphlets.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Is it just me or do all of these psycho tyrant women, Reno, Napolitano, Kagan, all look like they're from the same genetic stock?


Indeed. Pardon my crudeness. They all look like a cross between Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Rockefeller with a with a pair of floppers.

It is tragic to admit I am not surprised. I have abandoned all hope with our Federal Government.

It is out of control and there is nothing that is going to stop this train wreck from happening. The only unknown now is how much track do we have left?

[edit on 11-5-2010 by Anonymous Avatar]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
The Goldman Sach's tie is troubling, but I'm not sure what kind of conflict of interest the tie will present. Here is an article on Huffpost with a couple documents Kagan helped consult for:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Make what you will via the documents.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
To get a nomination

  • Look like peter Griffin
  • with earings
  • have radical views that conflict with the constitution



Please tell me some elite shadow group with Samual Jackson and Scarlett Johansson come in and take these idiots out?




[edit on 11-5-2010 by IntelRetard]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Hasn't anybody else got the feeling that this administration doesn't care about us or the constitution? Or should I say the clue. I've said it a hundred times now, we the people need to put a stop to this radicalism and get this country back on track, although it may be to late for action now. And no I'm just as lost as the next person as to where to start because it seems like voicing our opinion isn't cutting it...



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by prionace glauca
 


To be honest, I do not think a limited liability corporation should be granted unalienable rights.

Strip corporations of limited liability and we can talk.


As for the rest of Kagan's supposed support for bulldozing the first amendment I will just say:

"Congress shall make no law..."



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


You can't have it both ways. All speech comes from individuals whether they represent a Corporate point of view or and individuals thoughts. We don't need to head down that slippery slope. Every exception made to limit free speech is a nail in the coffin of free speech in general. We all understand, I think, what this was about.

How far is it from this to saying for instance free speech only applies to our elected representatives and not to us because we are a Republic. If it ever heads that direction, which is clearly what these folks want, it's a one way street to a country we won't recognize any more.

People need to understand, these people hate the Constitution. They want to parent us and make our decisions for us. They suffer from Grandiosity and deem us all unfit to make our own choices or even raise our own children. Their goal is a society where we all work for Unions which speak for us and all business is taken over under government control. They want a two class society and guess who gets all the marbles?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Freedom of speach only applies if you want to speak out against the nation ..it is a joke I do not have freedom of speach because I am conservative.
If I go out in public and speak my thoughts on illegal immigration I would be stoned and left to rot in jail for a hate crime.
Only if I speak of being offended by image of Jesus or the flag of the USA am I Granted "Freedom of Speach"!!!



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Not strong enough, poet. It seems to be getting better in *a few* places. Worse, HSUS/ PETA's work (& they are working OVERTIME in almost every city in the country) to pass draconian laws to limit & prohibit pet ownership and promote extinction started BEFORE Obama was elected. Even worse than that, Cass Sunstein has written a book promoting HSUS & PETA & Sunstein is a big fan. Figures.
(I need to look up the title, but I found that out on google by accident). Wayne Pacelle was quoted on HSUS' site some time back that he has "no problem with the extinction of all domestic animals")

humanewatch.org has some good information on them & keeps up. There is another one I can't remember offhand. Humane Watch has a Facebook page. If it is in your line & you are on FB, friend, fan or like, join ??- whatever. People don't know about this & one day, it will just hit. Please share.



[edit on 11-5-2010 by DogsDogsDogs]

[edit on 11-5-2010 by DogsDogsDogs]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


And please don't skip the comments! (keep the Zantac handy!)



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   
The supreme court nominee is my friend's aunt, my friend's name is Gordon Kagan. I look forward to asking him what meeting President Obama was like.

Their family is extremely liberal, but you don't need me to tell you that to figure that out.

EDIT: The personal connection makes me kind of offended when I hear people calling her "an enemy of the untied states" (she really isn't). However I'll acknowledge that anything goes when it comes to public figures.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by scwizard]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by jaynkeel
 

We, the people, can put a stop to this. There is an election coming up in November. Primaries are in full swing. Pick a candidate you can support and vote for him/her. Vote the ones that have been in office for two terms or more, out!
We have the choice to pick and choose our representatives and senators. If we don't excerise the franchise, then congress will be full of liberals who want to take down our liberties.
One more thing. Don't vote for the Party, vote for the one who most likely embraces your beliefs and convictions.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   
As long as the united states constitution says free speech, well thats end of game and story. just becuase a judical member, msot likely corrupt in one way anyways says so..she aint god nor the constitution of the united states...she is nothing but a human* we are americans, and do and will fight back*



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 01:45 AM
link   
ah elections...if our freedoms of speech or any kind of reefodms are in jeopardy, no thanks to our leaders...then its time to start voting people outta office on a massive scale* rebalance things in our favor



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by DogsDogsDogs
reply to post by poet1b
 


Not strong enough, poet. It seems to be getting better in *a few* places. Worse, HSUS/ PETA's work (& they are working OVERTIME in almost every city in the country) to pass draconian laws to limit & prohibit pet ownership and promote extinction started BEFORE Obama was elected. Even worse than that, Cass Sunstein has written a book promoting HSUS & PETA & Sunstein is a big fan. Figures.
(I need to look up the title, but I found that out on google by accident). Wayne Pacelle was quoted on HSUS' site some time back that he has "no problem with the extinction of all domestic animals")

humanewatch.org has some good information on them & keeps up. There is another one I can't remember offhand. Humane Watch has a Facebook page. If it is in your line & you are on FB, friend, fan or like, join ??- whatever. People don't know about this & one day, it will just hit. Please share.


I'll say this right now - somebody touches my dogs and its on!



top topics
 
71
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join