Newsmax reports on the emerging story of Elena Kagan’s recent argument as Solicitor General of the United States in favor of quashing First Amendment free speech.
She argued that congress has constitutional authority to forbid companies and other private groups to publish political pamphlets–though it remains unclear exactly where in the First Amendment she finds congressional authority for this among the words “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In a scathing concurrence to the opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts blasted Kagan’s argument.
“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.
“Its theory, if accepted, would empower the government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations — as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that Kagan was defending a law that represents an illegitimate attempt to use “censorship to control thought.”
He declared, “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
Kennedy is definitely no conservative, and yet even he could see what a dangerous and un-American argument Kagan was making.
CNS News has more on this issue here.
This woman is a homosexual activist, a fan of socialism, and an opponent of one of the most basic of American freedoms.
Any person who holds such anti-Constitutional, anti-freedom, anti-American views is supremely unqualified to serve in the government of the people of the United States of America, and is certainly unqualified to judge according to our laws and Constitution.
Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.