Approval of Kagan: Objection!

The Democrats have launched a fast-path process to have Elena Kagan approved before the fall session.  For the last few days I have asked why are they in a hurry to approve Kagan.  The answer is not 100% clear to me, but I am not going to debate that question here.  Kagan falls woefully short of being remotely qualified to sit on the High Court.

First, Kagan has NO experience as a judge at all.  We are talking zero, nada, zilch for a nominee to the Supreme Court who has NEVER been a judge.  Senator Patrick Leahy (D – VT) in this article states “that history, plus Kagan’s lack of experience as a judge — something Republicans have criticized — should make getting ready for these hearings “less labor-intensive.”  In most industries and business across America some experience in certain areas are required to obtain a job.  That is expected in the private sector, but I guess it is not in the public sector.  Our Senators and President are throwing common sense out the window!  Even though it has been done before (William Rehnquist), placing someone on the bench of the Supreme Court having never been a judge is lunacy in my book.

Second, it is clear to me that Elena Kagan is a judicial activist by her actions restricting military recruiting on a college campus.  Also, her writings in regard to the First Amendment cause me to have the most concern.  In her publication Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine she argues the case that the first factor to consider in a case involving the First Amendment is the government’s motives.  What about the individual?  Why should the government be the first concern?  Within the paper she states that “An action acquires meaning in part through motive, and the meaning of an action in part defines it. Hence, what an action is derives not only from what it does, but from where it comes from; so too, then, whether the action is legitimate involves this matter.
The doctrine of impermissible motive, viewed in this light, holds that the government may not signify disrespect for certain ideas and respect for others through burdens on expression. This does not mean that the government may never subject particular ideas to disadvantage. The government indeed may do so, if acting upon neutral, harm-based reasons.”

To me (I’m no legal scholar) it sounds as if she advocates that if the government sees our speech as harmful by THEIR definition then the government has every right to restrict free speech.  Her latest action seals it in my mind during the recent Citizens United Supreme Court case which dealt with government’s right to restrict speech during elections.  She argued FOR this practice to be done by the federal government.  In January, the court decisively rejected this argument.  Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the following:  “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…First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”

I will leave you with this thought:  “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.” Abridging means to shorten, reduce, condense, curtail, cut off.  Unfortunately, our government leaders over the years have not learned their vocabulary from high school and are wanting to limit our speech.   American citizens are NOT children that need to be lectured and bullied by its government on what can be stated or not stated in public.  A free civilization begins with free speech and when speech is restricted, tyranny can bound a once free society that is void of liberty.

Get Alerts