Kagan apparently believes that books can be banned

R

retro

Well-Known Member
2 2 2 2 1
15 Year Club Well Known
But it's okay, y'know, because the FEC has never tried to enforce that.

[youtube]rBqdKKKRrrg[/youtube]

Yup, this is the exact kind of person I want on the Supreme Court... someone that doesn't have any respect for the First Amendment. But hey, it's the way of the Obama Administration to wipe their collective asses with the supreme court of the land, why not appoint a Supreme Court judge that will do it too.
 
Look, I completely agree with Citizens United in this case. Her argument is so flawed it's almost funny. But just what exactly are you trying to prove with this? She was the Solicitor General of the US. Her job is to argue that case for the government before the Supreme Court. Would you expect her to not do her job the best she can? She doesn't get to pick and choose which laws she gets to argue. And obviously if the case made it to the Supreme Court there must have been some validity to both sides.
 
Minor Axis said:
For the OP, how exactly did you reach the conclusion that Kagan apparently believes that books can be banned?

And what exactly where they arguing?
Click to expand...

They were arguing Citizens United vs. FEC

When asked whether or not books could be banned, her statement was that you could under the statute, but that the FEC has never enforced it. That tells me that she believes under the law that it would be permissible to do so, regardless of the First Amendment.
 
dt3 said:
Look, I completely agree with Citizens United in this case. Her argument is so flawed it's almost funny. But just what exactly are you trying to prove with this? She was the Solicitor General of the US. Her job is to argue that case for the government before the Supreme Court. Would you expect her to not do her job the best she can? She doesn't get to pick and choose which laws she gets to argue. And obviously if the case made it to the Supreme Court there must have been some validity to both sides.
Click to expand...

The Solicitor General shouldn't be arguing against the First Amendment... but that's just my opinion.
 
retro said:
The Solicitor General shouldn't be arguing against the First Amendment... but that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...
The Solicitor General is required to represent the federal government on matters before the Supreme Court. She doesn't make the laws, she simply defends the laws passed by the legislature. She doesn't pick which side she's on, she argues the government's side. In this case, that was the FEC's side.
 
dt3 said:
The Solicitor General is required to represent the federal government on matters before the Supreme Court. She doesn't make the laws, she simply defends the laws passed by the legislature. She doesn't pick which side she's on, she argues the government's side. In this case, that was the FEC's side.
Click to expand...

Regardless of that fact... you can't say that it's okay to violate the First Amendment because it's never been enforced. Doesn't matter whose side you happen to be on. She basically admitted that it was unconstitutional, but that it was okay. That doesn't seem like a very sound legal argument to me, and as such it reflects on how she would make decisions on the Supreme Court.
 
retro said:
Regardless of that fact... you can't say that it's okay to violate the First Amendment because it's never been enforced. Doesn't matter whose side you happen to be on. She basically admitted that it was unconstitutional, but that it was okay. That doesn't seem like a very sound legal argument to me, and as such it reflects on how she would make decisions on the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Why don't you understand that lawyer's arguments aren't necessarily their personal beliefs? Do you think every defense attorney thinks their client is innocent? No. They play their role in the system. Her role, appointed by the President, is to represent the government in court. That's exactly what she did. Yes, it was a pathetic argument, but it's probably the only argument that can be used in that situation. But again, she didn't write the law and her job was not to decide the validity of it, her job was to defend it. The Congress wrote it, the Justices decide it, she argues it. Do you think she should have refused to do her job?
 
dt3 said:
Why don't you understand that lawyer's arguments aren't necessarily their personal beliefs? Do you think every defense attorney thinks their client is innocent? No. They play their role in the system. Her role, appointed by the President, is to represent the government in court. That's exactly what she did. Yes, it was a pathetic argument, but it's probably the only argument that can be used in that situation. But again, she didn't write the law and her job was not to decide the validity of it, her job was to defend it. The Congress wrote it, the Justices decide it, she argues it. Do you think she should have refused to do her job?
Click to expand...

I guess I wasn't being particularly clear. I'm saying two things:

1) She made a horrible legal argument

2) It should be pretty clear that laws are in violation of the Constitution and therefore shouldn't need to even be argued at the Supreme Court.

I suppose my subtle humor didn't particularly shine through in this circumstance :24: I'm really only trying to make the point that she did a completely piss-poor job of defending her case, and even admitted that the law was in violation of the Constitution.
 
and apparently I'm not allowed to comment below my YouTube videos >.>

Now this could've just been creative editing and cut her off before she actually answered... but it's a rather interesting watch. Did she actually decline to state whether it was unconstitutional for there to be a law enacted that would force Americans to eat fruits? Say what you will about Colburn, but what he did there was particularly ingenious.
 
Back
Top