Kagan: OK to ban books, foods, speech - videos - Proof!!

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 3733
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:32 pm

PostTue Jul 06, 2010 1:46 pm » by Illuminated


:hell:

Kagan: OK to ban books, OK to ban foods.

CLOSE [X]
Shocking and painful-to-hear testimony.

Coburn on sotomayor: "2 areas of very distinct testimony which it has been demonstrated she did not live up to" (2 most recent cases, 1 on the Second Amendment).

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/ ... -it-video/

SCO More..TUS Nominee Kagan: “It’s Fine if the Law Bans Books Because Government Won’t Really Enforce It” (video)
Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on June 28, 2010

Obama’s left-wing extremist SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan, back in 2009, chipping away at Americans’ constitutional rights… she believes it’s fine if the law bans books because “government won’t really enforce it.”

What the heck? They “won’t” enforce a book-banning law until they find it advantageous to suddenly enforce it… which could be any time under the Obama regime, and most certainly would be applied to any or all publications that don’t agree with Barack Obama or his socialist cronies.

Among the Supreme Court justices’ responses, Chief Justice Roberts said this: “We don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats.”

I don’t think left-winger Kagan would agree.

Kagan: It’s Fine if the Law Bans Books Because Government Won’t Really Enforce It | 2009



From Gateway Pundit:

Spoken like a true leftist radical…


From NY The Sun, Would Kagan Ban Books?:

There have been times, for sure, when the Supreme or lower courts have been asked about curbing speech and heard a restrictionist line from the government — in matters involving pornography, say, or communistic type subversion through the mails or telephone calls from terrorists. But it’s hard to recall the First Amendment hanging by a gossamer as flimsy as that offered by General Kagan.

Nor is this just any case. This is the case over which President Obama, during his state of the union speech, brought the Democratic Party majority in the Congress to its feet to hoot and holler and denounce the justices of the Supreme Court, as they sat their stoically and politely. This is the case the president has said he would have a litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee. Ask any construction worker on an I-beam, any farmer in a field, or grease monkey in a garage, and we’ll wager that he or she could do a better job defending the First Amendment than did, for all her illustrious education and magnificent credentials, Ms. Kagan before the high bench.

From Prison Planet, Senator: Kagan Argued Government Could Ban Books:

In an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Senator Mitch McConnell pointed out that Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan once argued that the government should have the power to ban books and censor political pamphlets, as yet more alarming information on Kagan’s hostility towards the First Amendment comes to light.

During the Citizens United vs. FEC case, Kagan’s office was asked by Chief Justice John Roberts if the government could ban publications it they were paid for by a corporation or labor union.

“If it’s a 500-page book, and at the end it says, ‘and so vote for x,’ the government could ban that?” Roberts asked, to which Kagan’s deputy, Malcolm L. Stewart, said the government could censor such information.

Justice Roberts blasted Kagan’s argument at the time, reports Newsmax.

“The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” he wrote.


From Dark Politricks, Kagan: ‘Disappear’ Free Speech If The Government Deems It Offensive:

Obama’s Supreme Court nominee agrees with Cass Sunstein – wants the state to regulate the First Amendment


President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is perfect in every way – perfect that is if you think the role of the highest judicial body in the United States is to ban free speech, indefinitely detain Americans without trial, resurrect command and control socialism, while urinating on everything the Constitution stands for.

We already discovered Kagan’s penchant for treating Americans as guilty until proven innocent, or in fact just plain guilty without even the chance to be proven innocent, when she was quoted as saying, “That someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than a physical battle zone.”

So under that definition, if you send money to a charity later linked with some nebulous terrorist group then you are financing Al-Qaeda and could be thrown in Gitmo or some other CIA black site never to be seen again. And this is the woman being forwarded to sit on a body that is supposed to safeguard civil liberties? That would be like hiring Charles Manson to coach the high school basketball team.

But it gets worse.
Now we learn that Kagan thinks certain expressions of free speech should be ‘disappeared’ if the government deems them to be offensive. On the surface that’s any opinion on racial, sexuality or gender issues, but since criticizing Obama is now deemed racist, where will it all end?

In a 1993 University of Chicago Law review article, Kagan wrote, “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.”

From Rasmussen Reports, on America’s current view of Kagan as a Supreme Court nominee…

After just dealing with an out-of-the-blue case of military insubordination, President Obama has another tough week ahead.

Senate hearings begin Monday on his second nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court in less than two years, and while voters are pretty sure Elena Kagan will be confirmed, they don’t care much for her.

Thirty-five percent (35%) favor Kagan’s confirmation, but 42% now believe she should not be confirmed, up nine points from the week the president announced her nomination.

UPDATE, June 29, 2010 – a snippet from Gateway Pundit, Kagan Fudged Study Results to Justify Partial Birth Abortion in Court… go to the blog to read the story in its deplorable entirety.

The Kagan Smoking Gun–

Elena Kagan fudged the results of a study on partial birth abortion in order to justify the procedure in court.

[...]

That’s not all… Apparently there is word that Kagan may have lied to the Supreme Court in a 9-11 case.


====

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.c ... splay=2010



Jun 30 2010
Dr. Coburn asks Elena Kagan to define her personal view of the Constitution and asks, "do you believe there are inalienable rights?"

Click play to view the video or follow this link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB4afWDTLnY

Dr. Coburn questions SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan about her view of Constitutional issues such as property rights and the Second Amendment, in the Judiciary Committee's third day of hearings.

Hearing transcript:



VIDEO ^ rest of article

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f8e_1278387283

:censored: :shooting:
Restoring Sanity and or Keeping Fear Alive! :wink:

Image

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook