http://www.breitbart.tv/kagans-own-words-its-fine-if-the-law-bans-books-because-government-wont-really-enforce-it/
Talk about radical socialist liberal.
Banning books reallY? And Obama wants this person to be a supreme court judge? Wow.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Kagan hearings
Kagan hearingsFollow
How is that radical socialism? Fascism has a history of burning books too.
Regardless, pretty dumb **** to say as it's not what the government will do, but what it could do with someone else at the helm.
Regardless, pretty dumb **** to say as it's not what the government will do, but what it could do with someone else at the helm.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
I don't really get the context of the clip - I haven't been following anything Kagan related. However, I do agree it's stupid to say that simply because it's never been enforced, it's OK for a law to be overly broad. She's stupid for saying that, regardless of her political affiliation.
Some people just have stupid views on things. I really don't understand the need to take one perspective and apply it generally to a group of people for the purpose of hateful rhetoric. Thankfully I don't constantly assume all republicans are as bad as you, Varus.
Edited, Jun 29th 2010 11:19am by BrownDuck
Some people just have stupid views on things. I really don't understand the need to take one perspective and apply it generally to a group of people for the purpose of hateful rhetoric. Thankfully I don't constantly assume all republicans are as bad as you, Varus.
Edited, Jun 29th 2010 11:19am by BrownDuck
BrownDuck wrote:
I don't really get the context of the clip
That's because it's been creatively edited.
Here's the complete text of the remarks which their claim was drawn from so you can take it in context if you want.
Edited, Jun 29th 2010 11:38am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Joph,
What a surprise you're defending a book burner. ****!
What a surprise you're defending a book burner. ****!
Hey, Catholics burned books too. Why can't I be a Catholic?
Edit: Anyway, I agree to an extent with BD (and the case lost anyway) but she's not saying that it's okay to pass laws banning books because the government won't enforce them. She's saying that the inability of the government to pass a law banning books is the hedge which prevents this particular law from being overly broad. In other words, the fact that the government can't ban books is innately what prevents campaign finance regulation that prevents political pamphlets from being extrapolated to into banning books. It's not an argument I'd want to hang my hat on but it's not saying what the OP wants it to say.
Edited, Jun 29th 2010 11:58am by Jophiel
Edit: Anyway, I agree to an extent with BD (and the case lost anyway) but she's not saying that it's okay to pass laws banning books because the government won't enforce them. She's saying that the inability of the government to pass a law banning books is the hedge which prevents this particular law from being overly broad. In other words, the fact that the government can't ban books is innately what prevents campaign finance regulation that prevents political pamphlets from being extrapolated to into banning books. It's not an argument I'd want to hang my hat on but it's not saying what the OP wants it to say.
Edited, Jun 29th 2010 11:58am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Where the **** does anyone get "it's fine if the law bans books" from that clip?
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Where the @#%^ does anyone get "it's fine if the law bans books" from that clip?
From their ***?
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Jophiel wrote:
the case lost anyway
Depends on your perspective, I suppose.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205 wrote:
Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie. The Movie expressed opinions about whether Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would make a good president...
By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited...
The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation...
Decision: 5 votes for Citizens United, 4 vote(s) against
By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited...
The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation...
Decision: 5 votes for Citizens United, 4 vote(s) against
CU challenged the application of the BCRA to their movie and won.
Since we were discussing Kagan, I meant that her side of the case lost.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Where the @#%^ does anyone get "it's fine if the law bans books" from that clip?
It's the part where she says, "What we're saying is, there has never been an enforcement action on books." She's arguing that they ruling they are talking about does not apply to books, and is citing the fact that there has never been enforcement action on books. The Right Bloggers are taking that as, "It's fine if the law bans books, because the government would never enforce it."
I see where they're getting it, but it takes an awful lot of twisting things. Because obviously Kagen does not believe the ruling (or whatever they're talking about) includes books at all.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Where the @#%^ does anyone get "it's fine if the law bans books" from that clip?
It's the part where she says, "What we're saying is, there has never been an enforcement action on books." She's arguing that they ruling they are talking about does not apply to books, and is citing the fact that there has never been enforcement action on books. The Right Bloggers are taking that as, "It's fine if the law bans books, because the government would never enforce it."
I see where they're getting it, but it takes an awful lot of twisting things. Because obviously Kagen does not believe the ruling (or whatever they're talking about) includes books at all.
Well, the issue is that the particular law they are discussing does in fact cover books. Her argument is that it has never been enforced and any attempt to do so would likely be met with an as-applied challenge, which is kind of weak, IMO.
Wikipedia wrote:
In the context of American jurisprudence, a facial challenge is a manner of challenging a statute in court, in which the plaintiff alleges that the statute is always, and under all circumstances, unconstitutional, and therefore void. It is contrasted with an as-applied challenge, which alleges that the statute may be, in part, unconstitutional, in redress of specific and particular injury.
...
If a facial challenge is successful, a court will declare the statute in question facially invalid, which has the effect of striking it down entirely. This contrasts with a successful as-applied challenge, which will result in a court narrowing the circumstances in which the statute may constitutionally be applied without striking it down.
...
If a facial challenge is successful, a court will declare the statute in question facially invalid, which has the effect of striking it down entirely. This contrasts with a successful as-applied challenge, which will result in a court narrowing the circumstances in which the statute may constitutionally be applied without striking it down.
Edited, Jun 29th 2010 12:56pm by BrownDuck
Hmm...
Maybe its good that the Right is bringing this up. Not because their point is valid in any way, but because it brings up a good point about the inequality of censorship between books and other media.
Maybe its good that the Right is bringing this up. Not because their point is valid in any way, but because it brings up a good point about the inequality of censorship between books and other media.
BrownDuck wrote:
Well, the issue is that the particular law they are discussing does in fact cover books. Her argument is that it has never been enforced and any attempt to do so would likely be met with an as-applied challenge, which is kind of weak, IMO.
What particular law are they discussing?
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
You can get a boiled down version of the court case on the site I linked if you go back to the beginning.
You can get a boiled down version of the court case on the site I linked if you go back to the beginning.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I'll be honest, I'm not incredibly well versed on this, but they are referring to section 441b of this document.
Kagan says "We went back, we considered the matter carefully, and the government's view is that although 441b does cover full-length books, that there would be quite good as-applied challenge to any attempt to apply 441b in that context." However, when I look at the relevant sections, I see:
which refers to:
To reiterate, further down in the transcript of the event in question:
\
I personally don't see that it covers books, but I'm sure I'm missing something.
Kagan says "We went back, we considered the matter carefully, and the government's view is that although 441b does cover full-length books, that there would be quite good as-applied challenge to any attempt to apply 441b in that context." However, when I look at the relevant sections, I see:
Quote:
(c) Rules relating to electioneering communications
(1) Applicable electioneering communication
For purposes of this section, the term “applicable electioneering communication†means an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434 (f)(3) of this title) which is made by any entity described in subsection (a) of this section or by any other person using funds donated by an entity described in subsection (a) of this section.
(1) Applicable electioneering communication
For purposes of this section, the term “applicable electioneering communication†means an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434 (f)(3) of this title) which is made by any entity described in subsection (a) of this section or by any other person using funds donated by an entity described in subsection (a) of this section.
which refers to:
Quote:
(3) Electioneering communication
For purposes of this subsection—
(A) In general
(i) The term “electioneering communication†means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which...
For purposes of this subsection—
(A) In general
(i) The term “electioneering communication†means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which...
To reiterate, further down in the transcript of the event in question:
Quote:
General Kagan: No, no, that's exactly right. The only statute that is involved in this case does not cover books. So 441b which--
Chief Justice Roberts: Does cover books.
Chief Justice Roberts: Does cover books.
I personally don't see that it covers books, but I'm sure I'm missing something.
Jophiel wrote:
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
Actually, Kagan said:
Quote:
It is still true that BCRA 203, which is the only statute involved in this case, does not apply to books or anything other than broadcast; 441b does, on its face, apply to other media.
Or more broadly, the conversation went like this:
Quote:
Justice Ginsburg: May I ask you one question that was highlighted in the prior argument, and that was if Congress could say no TV and radio ads, could it also say no newspaper ads, no campaign biographies?
Last time the answer was, yes, Congress could, but it didn't.
Is that -- is that still the government's answer?
General Kagan: --The government's answer has changed, Justice Ginsburg.
It is still true that BCRA 203, which is the only statute involved in this case, does not apply to books or anything other than broadcast; 441b does, on its face, apply to other media.
And we took what the Court -- what the Court's -- the Court's own reaction to some of those other hypotheticals very seriously.
We went back, we considered the matter carefully, and the government's view is that although 441b does cover full-length books, that there would be quite good as-applied challenge to any attempt to apply 441b in that context.
And I should say that the FEC has never applied 441b in that context.
So for 60 years a book has never been at issue.
Last time the answer was, yes, Congress could, but it didn't.
Is that -- is that still the government's answer?
General Kagan: --The government's answer has changed, Justice Ginsburg.
It is still true that BCRA 203, which is the only statute involved in this case, does not apply to books or anything other than broadcast; 441b does, on its face, apply to other media.
And we took what the Court -- what the Court's -- the Court's own reaction to some of those other hypotheticals very seriously.
We went back, we considered the matter carefully, and the government's view is that although 441b does cover full-length books, that there would be quite good as-applied challenge to any attempt to apply 441b in that context.
And I should say that the FEC has never applied 441b in that context.
So for 60 years a book has never been at issue.
I was speaking more broadly. Per the main page:
Quote:
Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie. The Movie expressed opinions about whether Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would make a good president.
In an attempt to regulate "big money" campaign contributions, the BCRA applies a variety of restrictions to "electioneering communications." Section 203 of the BCRA prevents corporations or labor unions from funding such communication from their general treasuries. Sections 201 and 311 require the disclosure of donors to such communication and a disclaimer when the communication is not authorized by the candidate it intends to support.
In an attempt to regulate "big money" campaign contributions, the BCRA applies a variety of restrictions to "electioneering communications." Section 203 of the BCRA prevents corporations or labor unions from funding such communication from their general treasuries. Sections 201 and 311 require the disclosure of donors to such communication and a disclaimer when the communication is not authorized by the candidate it intends to support.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Ok. Well, it's over my head.
I think the point here is that she was defending the law as written and her defense as it applied to books was basically that while the law did as written apply to books, and that this would/should be considered a violation of the constitution, the law itself was ok because if someone attempted to enforce it in the context of a book, it would be struck down by the courts. So what the conservatives are saying is more or less correct. It's kind of a tangential component of a larger argument though.
It's a bit worrisome, but not that much. Unfortunately, it's quite common for laws to be written which include things they know are unconstitutional and will be struck down because the parts they care about are within bounds and will be upheld. I agree that it's a crappy way to write laws, but it's not exactly uncommon and those who work in the relevant legal positions all know it and understand it. It's only alarming when those who aren't familiar with how often this process occurs hear someone say it (as in this case).
Of all the things she's said, this isn't really that bothersome. I suppose it'll rile some people up, but I wouldn't hold my breath on it having any effect on anything.
Edited, Jun 29th 2010 1:23pm by gbaji
It's a bit worrisome, but not that much. Unfortunately, it's quite common for laws to be written which include things they know are unconstitutional and will be struck down because the parts they care about are within bounds and will be upheld. I agree that it's a crappy way to write laws, but it's not exactly uncommon and those who work in the relevant legal positions all know it and understand it. It's only alarming when those who aren't familiar with how often this process occurs hear someone say it (as in this case).
Of all the things she's said, this isn't really that bothersome. I suppose it'll rile some people up, but I wouldn't hold my breath on it having any effect on anything.
Edited, Jun 29th 2010 1:23pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
I think the point here is that she was defending the law as written and her defense as it applied to books was basically that while the law did as written apply to books, and that this would/should be considered a violation of the constitution, the law itself was ok because if someone attempted to enforce it in the context of a book, it would be struck down by the courts. So what the conservatives are saying is more or less correct. It's kind of a tangential component of a larger argument though.
I didn't take it so much as her defending the law, as stating that the government had discovered, after the fact, that it could include books in this way, but also had found that it would never hold up to a court challenge. It's not as though she has the option of getting up to the SCOTUS and choosing not to defend the current law, after all. It's not indicative of her own point of view, but of the duty she held in that office.
As far as banning books, last time I checked, most of what's considered "classic literature" has been banned at one point or another by school districts whose constituencies are primarily made up of conservatives.
So I don't know what Varus is trying to get at, other than that he's an idiot.
So I don't know what Varus is trying to get at, other than that he's an idiot.
MDenham wrote:
As far as banning books, last time I checked, most of what's considered "classic literature" has been banned at one point or another by school districts whose constituencies are primarily made up of conservatives.
So I don't know what Varus is trying to get at, other than that he's an idiot.
So I don't know what Varus is trying to get at, other than that he's an idiot.
When conservatives do it, it's not "book banning" it's "protecting the innocence of the youth".
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
MDenham wrote:
As far as banning books, last time I checked, most of what's considered "classic literature" has been banned at one point or another by school districts whose constituencies are primarily made up of conservatives.
So I don't know what Varus is trying to get at, other than that he's an idiot.
So I don't know what Varus is trying to get at, other than that he's an idiot.
When conservatives do it, it's not "book banning" it's "
Mdenham,
Prove it, liar.
And last time I checked individual communities determining what books their children should read is a far cry from a supreme court justice regulating what books people can read.
Quote:
As far as banning books, last time I checked, most of what's considered "classic literature" has been banned at one point or another by school districts whose constituencies are primarily made up of conservatives
Prove it, liar.
And last time I checked individual communities determining what books their children should read is a far cry from a supreme court justice regulating what books people can read.
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Mdenham,
Prove it, liar.
And last time I checked individual communities determining what books their children should read is a far cry from a supreme court justice regulating what books people can read.
Quote:
As far as banning books, last time I checked, most of what's considered "classic literature" has been banned at one point or another by school districts whose constituencies are primarily made up of conservatives
Prove it, liar.
And last time I checked individual communities determining what books their children should read is a far cry from a supreme court justice regulating what books people can read.
Recent Visitors: 289
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (289)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Kagan hearings
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC