a new nominee

So Obama has an opportunity to finally put a justice on the Supreme court, we always knew it would be a radical leftist, but even Barry has outdone himself this time. His current nominee has a flagrant disregard for the Constitution. She doesn't hold sacred the document that our country was based on, she is one of those liberals that thinks the Constitution can be interpreted as any judge sees fit. There is really nothing such as Constitutional Law.

In the case the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in March of 2009, Justice Roberts interprets what Kagen was trying to convey, "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,” wrote Roberts. “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.”

When the court heard oral arguments in the case again on Sept. 9, 2009, Kagan personally made the case for the administration. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked Kagan if the administration stood by its position that the government could ban books.

Kagan told Ginsburg that the administration had changed its position. It now believed that although the law itself allowed the government to ban corporations from publishing books, it believed that if the government actually tried to do so a litigant would have a good case challenging that prohibition in court.

Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, also known as the McCain-Feingold law), a corporation could be banned from publishing any book that advocated for some candidate or position on an issue with general funds, they would need to set up a PAC and use designated funds. Of course the court never decided completely what constitutes a "book", in fact "Chief Justice Roberts wanting to pin Kagan down on how far she believed the government could go in banning speech by corporations. He specifically asked her if the government could ban a pamphlet published by a corporation. She indicated the government could do that."

So she believes that censorship is okay, but that there might be a case against it. That is until the Supreme Court, which she wants to sit on, decides that the case is baseless, at which time censoring unpopular speech will become the law of the land. Yeah, this is a fair and impartial advocate. This is scary, never mind her stance on other important issues, I won't even mention her position on marriage and abortion. She needs to be "borked" big time, only thing is, does the media have the balls to tell the truth. Probably not.

quotes taken from cnsnews.com/news/article/65600