- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,909
- Reaction score
- 11,003
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
She also claims it's okay to have a law on banning books because it will never really be enforced.
She also claims it's okay to have a law on banning books because it will never really be enforced.
A truly confusing person and with equally confusing views...
I would like to see the quote. Because if she did say something like that, I'm surprised she has made it this far. That type of language is quite scary.
I would like to see the quote. Because if she did say something like that, I'm surprised she has made it this far. That type of language is quite scary.
Interesting clip. Did Kagan ever answer the question? I know a 1 minute clip can sometimes be taken out of context. And did she seriously say it was OK to ban books? I didn't expect that I'd agree with Kagan on questions of the scope of federal authority, but now I'm wondering if she believes there should be ANY limits to federal authority.
it sounds like she did... sort of - she had said that: it's a dumb law, but we can't strike down the law based on the fact that it's dumb. This makes it sound like she would consider such a law dumb, but constitutional. That's unfortunate. It'd be like the national government regulating how much salt companies could put in their food... (though I'm all for full disclosure of how much salt is in food and its affect on the consumer, but if a person is selling a product and everyone is fully informed and there is a buyer for said product - that's between the consumer and producer).
Right, but we don't want the Supreme Court knocking down stupid laws -- only unconstitutional ones.
it sounds like she did... sort of - she had said that: it's a dumb law, but we can't strike down the law based on the fact that it's dumb. This makes it sound like she would consider such a law dumb, but constitutional. That's unfortunate. It'd be like the national government regulating how much salt companies could put in their food... (though I'm all for full disclosure of how much salt is in food and its affect on the consumer, but if a person is selling a product and everyone is fully informed and there is a buyer for said product - that's between the consumer and producer).
Ah, I see now. There are two points to make:
1. It was said in the context of her being an advocate, arguing in favor of a law for her employer (the government) and does not necessarily represent her personal views. (For instance, I have argued and debated laws while in court that I disagree with completely -- but it's my job to be an advocate for my client).
2. It was in the context of unregulated political advertising since that was the case being argued. She was arguing that all political ads (including pamphlets and books) should state who paid for them, and if they do not then they would violate the law and thus be "banned" -- not for the content of what they say but because they did not follow the law. After all, if the government can require all food products to have (for instance) health information on the label and can prohibit those that do not, that does not mean it is a violation of the 1st amendment.
So yeah, in context I understand the quote. Taken out of context it sounds pretty bad.
Ah, when taken in that context, it makes a lot more sense. I'm not sure I'm 100% on board with the constitutionality of a law requiring politcal adds state who paid for them, but its far less troubling than an outright endorsement of book banning.
What's the difference?
I think anyone speaking to Congress takes an "avoid answering" course - as they don't want to go on record with a clear direct answer.Ok, here's what scares me. Kagan would not say that forcing people by law to eat 3 fruits and 3 vegetables daily was unconstitutional. Try as he might Coburn couldn't get her to say it. She seemed to think that something like that could be covered even though it would be a "stupid" law. That's the problem! Stupid laws are passed all the time.
What's the difference?
1. Watch the clip.
2. Take the poll.
P.S. I know it's a hypothetical question and I know Kagan said she doesn't think the court should strike down laws because they're senselessconfused . That's not the question.
Is it Constitutional?
Why are so many people, including Supreme Court Justices, SO STUPID?
It's so simple. Just ask two questions:
1. Is it specifically permitted in the Constitution? If it is omitted, it is NOT Constitutional.
2. Does it violate people's individual rights? If it does, it is NOT Constitutional.
About 90% of what the government does is unconstitutional. Ditto for state and local governments.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?