Take on Kagan?

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Sorry I hadn't scoured the internets for a free version of the article. The only version I located was behind the paywall on JSTOR.

Thanks for the link though, douchebag.

whats with the personal name calling!!!!!!!!!!! you said someone else was full of shit, so i just gave your words right back at ya

whiny hypocrite

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I'm not treating it as a direct quote at all. I'm treating it as a misleading and shitty paraphrase of something that Kagan never actually wrote. And it is.

This is the misleading paraphrase: Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.

The portion quoted above offers no support whatsoever for the paraphrase. Indeed, the portion you quoted above concerns the governmental interest in passing hate-crime laws -- to suppress race-based violence, not laws suppressing speech -- race-based speech. Moreover, Kagan is merely describing the Supreme Court's unanimous holding in the Mitchell case, not espousing her personal view of the matter.

Compare what Kagan wrote to this:



That's Chief Justice Rehnquist writing for a unanimous Court in Mitchell. Apparently, Chief Justice Rehnquist and the entirety of the Supreme Court in 1993 (when that case was decided), like Kagan, can be said to support the notion that the government can suppress speech because it is offensive to society or the government.

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

 

[Bonestorm]

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:



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

No, I read the footnote. Apparently, you have an inability to understand an author attempting to develop a framework for understanding the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence, which is was Kagan was doing in that article.

The fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court has itself established a work-around for regulation of expressive conduct by enacting laws of general applicability that impact expressive conduct, i.e. (as Kagan discusses) employment discrimination laws and hate-crime statutes. The Supreme Court has unanimously approved of such laws as I noted in the Mitchell case and also in any of a number of challenges to Title VII.

The portion of Kagan's article are that you keep pointing to is descriptive in that it merely describes how the Court has ruled on laws that impact speech but not explicitly so. For example, in Mitchell the Court held that a sentence enhancement for racially motivated assault is not unconstitutional. Here's the quote again (apparently, you missed it the first time):

The Wisconsin statute singles out for enhancement bias-inspired conduct because this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm. For example, according to the State and its amici, bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest. The State's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, "it is but reasonable that, among crimes of different natures, those should be most severely punished which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness."

 

[Jarod]

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:



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

As an attorney, just because you argue something for a client to a court does not mean you personally belive that is the way it should be.

Ive argued plenty of things to a Court, that if I were the judge, I would rule against my argument.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

As an attorney, just because you argue something for a client to a court does not mean you personally belive that is the way it should be.

Ive argued plenty of things to a Court, that if I were the judge, I would rule against my argument.

she wasn't arguing for a CLIENT...this was an ARTICLE she wrote, these are her personal opinions

help us all that you're a voter

 

[Bonestorm]

As an attorney, just because you argue something for a client to a court does not mean you personally belive that is the way it should be.

Ive argued plenty of things to a Court, that if I were the judge, I would rule against my argument.

But she isn't even arguing for anything. She's merely trying to make sense of the Court's 1st Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No, I read the footnote. Apparently, you have an inability to understand an author attempting to develop a framework for understanding the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence, which is was Kagan was doing in that article.

The fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court has itself established a work-around for regulation of expressive conduct by enacting laws of general applicability that impact expressive conduct, i.e. (as Kagan discusses) employment discrimination laws and hate-crime statutes. The Supreme Court has unanimously approved of such laws as I noted in the Mitchell case and also in any of a number of challenges to Title VII.

The portion of Kagan's article are that you keep pointing to is descriptive in that it merely describes how the Court has ruled on laws that impact speech but not explicitly so. For example, in Mitchell the Court held that a sentence enhancement for racially motivated assault is not unconstitutional. Here's the quote again (apparently, you missed it the first time):

nothing you have provided takes away from my analysis and her clear words...it doesn't matter if the court already ruled the way she agrees with....she is unequivocally supportive of suppressing speech that HARMS a segment of society, iow....she supports the government suppressing speech that is offensive to society and the government and she likes that there exists rulings that get around the first amendment by classifying this "harmful" racial speech as non-speech....it is completely obvious this is her attempt to circumvent the 1st amendment...

it is clear as day nigel, all your desperate spinning will not change it

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

But she isn't even arguing for anything. She's merely trying to make sense of the Court's 1st Amendment jurisprudence.

this is a bald face lie...its clear you haven't read the rest of her article

 

[Jarod]

she wasn't arguing for a CLIENT...this was an ARTICLE she wrote, these are her personal opinions

help us all that you're a voter

I did not say she was, in this instance.... however I have seen over and over arguments about things she argued for or against to different courts.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I did not say she was, in this instance.... however I have seen over and over arguments about things she argued for or against to different courts.

so your comment had nothign to do with what where we are talking about...got it

thanks for the random gibberish

 

[Bonestorm]

nothing you have provided takes away from my analysis and her clear words...it doesn't matter if the court already ruled the way she agrees with....she is unequivocally supportive of suppressing speech that HARMS a segment of society, iow....she supports the government suppressing speech that is offensive to society and the government and she likes that there exists rulings that get around the first amendment by classifying this "harmful" racial speech as non-speech....it is completely obvious this is her attempt to circumvent the 1st amendment...

it is clear as day nigel, all your desperate spinning will not change it

You're being ridiculous. Kagan's article is merely an attempt to establish a broad theory to understand much of the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence. To contend otherwise is really silly. And to contend that Kagan is "unequivocally supportive of suppressing speech" isn't substantiated by the portion of the article that you posted.

The most that could credibly be claimed is that Kagan expressed no disagreement with unanimous Supreme Court precedent. Now, maybe that's a problem for you, but if so explain why that's a problem for you instead of pretending that Kagan is some wild-eyed outside of the mainstream loony.

 

[Damocles]

Funny how this thread evolved from, 'she is no scholar... because she has not published." to an attack on her for her publications.

At one point Damocles was comparing this brilliant scholar to.... Harriett Meyers!

Seriously disingenuous. Please repost what I said rather than try to assign meaning that wasn't there. I didn't say they were the same, I said it was reminiscent. The WH lawyer gets the nod.

I then stated that she hadn't published very much, not that she hadn't published "at all"...

So far, her work is not voluminous, therefore there is a deficit of information on her opinions. Which I also said was reminiscent of Obama, whom we've disagreed on what kind of job he is doing. I have explained why I think he is doing a terrible job, you have just "disagreed" with that without explanation.

 

[Bonestorm]

this is a bald face lie...its clear you haven't read the rest of her article

No, it's the truth. I have read much of the article, but admittedly not all of it. I mean, its 106 pages long and contains 286 footnotes. I seriously doubt that you read the whole thing. If, however, you bothered to read both the introduction and the conclusion, at least, you would understand what the purpose of the article is. Apparently, you haven't bothered to do even that much.

 

[Jarod]

Seriously disingenuous. Please repost what I said rather than try to assign meaning that wasn't there. I didn't say they were the same, I said it was reminiscent. The WH lawyer gets the nod.

I then stated that she hadn't published very much, not that she hadn't published "at all"...

So far, her work is not voluminous, therefore there is a deficit of information on her opinions. Which I also said was reminiscent of Obama, whom we've disagreed on what kind of job he is doing. I have explained why I think he is doing a terrible job, you have just "disagreed" with that without explanation.

If it was not you, it was Candy who said she had not published.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You're being ridiculous. Kagan's article is merely an attempt to establish a broad theory to understand much of the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence. To contend otherwise is really silly. And to contend that Kagan is "unequivocally supportive of suppressing speech" isn't substantiated by the portion of the article that you posted.

The most that could credibly be claimed is that Kagan expressed no disagreement with unanimous Supreme Court precedent. Now, maybe that's a problem for you, but if so explain why that's a problem for you instead of pretending that Kagan is some wild-eyed outside of the mainstream loony.

what is truly silly nigel is how far you will bend over in any attempt to protect your beloved dems. the portion i quoted isn't very difficult to understand, in fact, its quite clear. the portion i quoted is very clear that she supports the suppression of racial or offensive speech because it harms society and that the government has an interest in PROTECTING that segment of society from HARM. those specific words are used and she clearly supports the notion that the speech can actually be regulated as NON-SPEECH. you can't miss those words, they are there, clear as day. any attempt to twist her words to another meaning is nothing but hackery....

but keep up your desperate spinning, i would be worried about you if you didn't

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No, it's the truth. I have read much of the article, but admittedly not all of it. I mean, its 106 pages long and contains 286 footnotes. I seriously doubt that you read the whole thing. If, however, you bothered to read both the introduction and the conclusion, at least, you would understand what the purpose of the article is. Apparently, you haven't bothered to do even that much.

your spin this morning is cute...this is just from the portion i've quoted you twice:

Given this interest, existing apart
from any speech, the Court correctly treated hate-crimes laws as
laws of general application.

gee....she makes an opinion, argument that is court is CORRECT to treat hate crimes this way....this is how she supports the suppression of offensive speech, because its hateful and harms society

seriously, how you can't see this is truly amazing....i know y8ou are a strong party partisan, but come on, this is objective stuff nigel....

 

[Damocles]

If it was not you, it was Candy who said she had not published.

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.)

 

[Bonestorm]

what is truly silly nigel is how far you will bend over in any attempt to protect your beloved dems. the portion i quoted isn't very difficult to understand, in fact, its quite clear. the portion i quoted is very clear that she supports the suppression of racial or offensive speech because it harms society and that the government has an interest in PROTECTING that segment of society from HARM. those specific words are used and she clearly supports the notion that the speech can actually be regulated as NON-SPEECH. you can't miss those words, they are there, clear as day. any attempt to twist her words to another meaning is nothing but hackery....

but keep up your desperate spinning, i would be worried about you if you didn't

I'm not twisting her words in the slightest. That's what you are doing. She is merely agreeing with the holding of a unanimous Supreme Court that has held that hate-crime legislation does not run afoul of the First Amendment because the government has an interest is protecting against the harms of hate crimes. Do I really need to quote the Mitchell case again for you? Apparently so:

The Wisconsin statute singles out for enhancement bias-inspired conduct because this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm. For example, according to the State and its amici, bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest. The State's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, "it is but reasonable that, among crimes of different natures, those should be most severely punished which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness."

Now, maybe you think that Chief Justice Rehniquist and the unanimous Court in Mitchell were wrong and that Kagan is wrong for agreeing with them. If so, say it instead of this silly shit.

 

[Bonestorm]

your spin this morning is cute...this is just from the portion i've quoted you twice:

gee....she makes an opinion, argument that is court is CORRECT to treat hate crimes this way....this is how she supports the suppression of offensive speech, because its hateful and harms society

seriously, how you can't see this is truly amazing....i know y8ou are a strong party partisan, but come on, this is objective stuff nigel....

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.

 

[Damocles]

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.

I fully believe that she'll be confirmed, and easily.