Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, wrote in her Princeton senior thesis, titled, “To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933”, “In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness. Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation’s established parties?”
“Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism in New York to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered. The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one’s fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope.”
Now it goes without saying that our Constitution was not designed with socialism in mind as the government of choice for America. Some will argue that the young Kagan was simply involved in an academic discussion and that it is not necessarily an accurate reflection of her personal politics. If that’s true, why was this in a recent filing signed by Kagan in her current role as Solicitor General…
“Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”
Read that again – it appears to suggest that free speech is subject to its’ value. The value of speech itself is a subjective matter depending on who is listening. More from Kagan…
In 1993, Kagan wrote an article for the University of Chicago Law Review , in which she said , “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.”
As recently as September, Kagan argued that Congress has the constitutional right to forbid companies from engaging in political speech such as publishing pamphlets that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.
The court ruled 5-4 against Kagan (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) and her contention the government could limit political speech by corporations. In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “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. 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 Kennedy, in the majority opinion added that Kagan was defending a law that represents an attempt to use “censorship to control thought”, saying “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
So I ask you with all the talk of “net neutrality”, new FCC regulations to create diversity, newspaper bailouts and the regulatory tricks the administration is fond of – can we really afford a Supreme Court Justice who wants to manipulate the Constitution?
Kagan’s views on free speech are frightening. The idea that free speech become subject to government regulation is unconscionable and un-American. This violates the fundamental premise of the First Amendment, that all speech should be protected.
The thought of creating an unholy alliance between Ms. Kagan and the always frightening Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein should be enough to rally every conservative, republican and American in Congress to oppose her confirmation. Remember, Sunstein in a white paper of his own called “Conspiracy Theories” said the government should have the right to censor political views that it felt were inappropriate, damaging or misleading.
Quoting Sunstein on page 20 of his paper, “We could imagine circumstances in which a conspiracy theory became so pervasive, and so dangerous, that censorship would be thinkable.” His solutions include: A government ban on conspiracy theories and considering some type of government penalties such as a tax or fine on individuals who disseminate such theories.
The issues that must be raised at these confirmation hearings center on – who is Elena Kagan and what are her beliefs/ideals? How will they affect her rulings? Does she believe in the Constitution and will she support it? Is she a person who you want defending your rights and the Constitution? Or will she just be another tool in the box of those trying to “fundamentally transform America”?
So America, it is time to ask, how much control should the government have? This is not what the founding fathers had in mind. The government we see evolving before us is not part of any of the blue prints they left us! Our way of life, our freedom, our liberties and our sovereignty are at risk! It is time to stand up and fight back!
Wake up America! Restore the Republic, Reject the Agenda of the Progressive Left!
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” – Winston Churchill
“I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing”. –Ronald Reagan
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same”. – Ronald Reagan
Sources used for this blog:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-769_Petitioner.pdf
Uncommon Sense 