Take on Kagan?

Damocles said:
I said, she had not published much. It's not like that word isn't significant.

Showing three articles doesn't even change what I said. There is a dearth of published work considering the requirements to become tenured in every case that I know about (which, as I explained, is actually significant as I know quite a few professors.)
Click to expand...

It is a signifigance and I am sure if you say you qualified it, you did. It was candy then who said "not published"!
 
NigelTufnel said:
So, in the end the banner headline is that Kagan agrees with a unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court authored by Chief Justice Rehnquist?

Wow, that's some devastating stuff you've got there.
Click to expand...

hence....the WMD paraphrase (which you later dishonestly tried to characterize as an exact quote) was accurate

she was arguing that they were correct and she EXPANDED on the ruling and gave her reasons WHY

go ahead and keep ignoring her plain words nigel...it really makes you look stupid...and you keep repeating that case, BFD nigel, it does nothing to diminish her ARGUMENT in the article
 
Yurt said:
hence....the WMD paraphrase (which you later dishonestly tried to characterize as an exact quote) was accurate

she was arguing that they were correct and she EXPANDED on the ruling and gave her reasons WHY

go ahead and keep ignoring her plain words nigel...it really makes you look stupid...and you keep repeating that case, BFD nigel, it does nothing to diminish her ARGUMENT in the article
Click to expand...


Actually, no. You're wrong. You are attributing something to her that she never said. I'm not ignoring anything. I'm simply calling bullshit on you and World Nut Daily.

If you actually read the article and read the cases being discussed, specifically the Mitchell case and the R.A.V. casem you might understand the distinction that the Supreme Court and Kagan are making regarding hate-based conduct and hate-based speech. Then again, given your chronic inability to read and understand simple sentences, I imagine both Kagan's article and SCOTUS opinions are well beyond your ken.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Actually, no. You're wrong. You are attributing something to her that she never said. I'm not ignoring anything. I'm simply calling bullshit on you and World Nut Daily.

If you actually read the article and read the cases being discussed, specifically the Mitchell case and the R.A.V. casem you might understand the distinction that the Supreme Court and Kagan are making regarding hate-based conduct and hate-based speech. Then again, given your chronic inability to read and understand simple sentences, I imagine both Kagan's article and SCOTUS opinions are well beyond your ken.
Click to expand...

you keep pointing to anything BUT the paragraph and footnotes i presented...its clear nigel and your denial is humerous

keep hacking, someday you'll build your perfect partisan house :clink:
 
Yurt said:
and you say i have reading comprehension problems....did you even read the footnotes? i doubt it...

here is what she said from what i quoted earlier:

The government
may have a non-speech-related interest for sanctioning racebased
assault, no less than race-based discharge: an interest in
eradicating racially based forms of disadvantage-in preventing
disproportionate harm from falling, by virtue of status alone, on
members of a racial group. Given this interest, existing apart
from any speech, the Court correctly treated hate-crimes laws as
laws of general application.

she is quite clearly saying that the government has an interest in suppressing hate or racist speech....she is rationalizing this by saying it is a NONSPEECH related interest...she is trying to get around the 1st amendment in order to suppress speech that disproportionatly harms members of a racial group and she believes the government has an interest in PREVENTING this harm
Click to expand...

clear as day, but i do understand nigel's desperate need to defend anything obama and by extension his picks...this really is a stupid stand to fight for nigel...your energy could be spent on more important matters, trust me, this won't stall or harm her confirmation, so stop being so silly
 
Yurt said:
clear as day, but i do understand nigel's desperate need to defend anything obama and by extension his picks...this really is a stupid stand to fight for nigel...your energy could be spent on more important matters, trust me, this won't stall or harm her confirmation, so stop being so silly
Click to expand...


Uh, that paragraph concerns the governmental interest in suppressing race-based assault, not speech of any kind. You really do have some basic reading comprehension problems.

And you really ought to get over yourself. I'm under no delusions that your misreading of Kagan will somehow impact her confirmation.
 
Yurt said:
you keep pointing to anything BUT the paragraph and footnotes i presented...its clear nigel and your denial is humerous

keep hacking, someday you'll build your perfect partisan house :clink:
Click to expand...


Let me try to make it a bit more clear for you:

The government may have a non-speech-related interest for sanctioning race-based assault, no less than race-based discharge: an interest in eradicating racially based forms of disadvantage-in preventing disproportionate harm from falling, by virtue of status alone, on members of a racial group. Given this interest, existing apart from any speech, the Court correctly treated hate-crimes laws as laws of general application.
Click to expand...
 
apparently nigel is going to continue this stupidity...so i guess i have to reprint the whole thing again because he is being dishonest:

252P erhaps the same argument applies to hate-crimes
laws; indeed, the Court in Mitchell, though upholding such a law,
understood it in much this way, pointing to interests the government
had in restricting expression of racist messages.253 But
this view of hate-crimes laws is not necessary. The government
may have a non-speech-related interest for sanctioning racebased
assault, no less than race-based discharge: an interest in
eradicating racially based forms of disadvantage-in preventing
disproportionate harm from falling, by virtue of status alone, on
members of a racial group. Given this interest, existing apart
from any speech, the Court correctly treated hate-crimes laws as
laws of general application.
Click to expand...

nigel apparently doesn't have enough reading comprehension to understand that discharge is speech

at first i thought you were just being a hack, but good lord, you're dumb
 
Yurt said:
apparently nigel is going to continue this stupidity...so i guess i have to reprint the whole thing again because he is being dishonest:



nigel apparently doesn't have enough reading comprehension to understand that discharge is speech

at first i thought you were just being a hack, but good lord, you're dumb
Click to expand...


Discharge is speech? Good God, man. You're waaaaaaaaay off the reservation. "Discharge" in the sentence refers to discharge from employment, termination, firing, as in the government has an interest in preventing employers from firing/discharging/terminating employees on the basis of race:

In this way, a hate-crimes law functions in the same way as any discrimination law-for example, in the sphere of employment relations. When an employer fires an employee on the basis of race, the government may impose sanctions whether or not speech accompanies or itself effects the discharge; whatever speech is involved is incidental to the activity (race-based discharge) that the law condemns. The government may do the same when one person assaults another on the basis of race, again whether or not speech accompanies the conduct; a penalty enhancement may follow because it is pegged to conduct (race-based assault) that the state is attempting to prevent irrespective whether it has an expressive component. In both cases, the generality of the law provides a qualified assurance that disapproval of ideas qua ideas played no causal role in the legislative process.
Click to expand...


You see, you want to conflate race-based assault (or termination/firing/discharge) and race-based speech to pretend that because Kagan agrees with the Supreme Court that the government can prohibit racist-based assault (and termination/discharge/firing) without violating the 1st Amendment, she believes that the government can prohibit race-based speech without violating the 1st Amendment. But, it just isn't so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top