After listening to Obama's people for over a year I know they have no respect for the civil rights of non-Democrats. They seem to think that if someone disagrees with them that person has somehow proved they are 'anti government' and they tend to treat them as enemies with a vigor they never seem able to summon in dealing with our country's true enemies. They seem to share intolerance for dissent and a need to control everything that starkly contrasts with the democratic and basic human rights elements in our Constitution and traditions.
From The Hill:
""Solicitor Kagan's office in the initial hearing argued that it would be OK to ban books," McConnell said. "And then when there was a rehearing Solicitor Kagan herself in her first Supreme Court argument suggested that it might be OK to ban pamphlets.
"I think that's very troubling, and this whole area of her view of the First Amendment and political speech is something that ought to be explored by the Judiciary Committee and by the full Senate," McConnell said.
"In the case in question, Chief Justice John Roberts asked the government lawyer whether the law in question could also prevent the publication of a campaign-related book, if it was 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.
"Kagan's deputy, Malcolm L. Stewart, said yes.
""We could prohibit the publication of that book," he responded.
""In a later oral argument, Kagan slightly modified that position, but still found herself arguing that the government could ban certain pamphlets, depending on who paid for their publication.
""And if you say that you are not going to apply it to a book, what about a pamphlet?" Roberts asked.
"“A pamphlet would be different. A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering, so there is no attempt to say that [law] only applies to video and not to print," Kagan responded."
No comments:
Post a Comment