Split Thread Is Elena Kagan a Zionist? (split from "...explains the Holocaust")

[Skeptic]

That's where we disagree. I think what Saggy really means is "Jewish person."

Saggy is a holocaust denier, as he openly admits.

Like most holocaust deniers, he believes the usual antisemitic "evil Jews control the world" conspiracy theories. Only he calls them "zionists".

Amazingly, Parky accepts these conspiracy theories as correct -- he merely disagrees with Saggy on whether the guilty party is the "zionists" in general or the "right-wing zionists" in particular.

Clearly, both accept the "evil Jews control the world" conspiracy-theory worldview. That there IS such a conspiracy is, to both, beyond doubt.

Their disagreement is merely a matter of what to call those all-powerful evil Jews, or who exactly those Jews are.

 

[marksman]

If you interpret 'freedom of speech' to mean 'freedom of the press' than that's a start, and is probably what the originals were thinking about.

It absolutely isn't what the Founders were thinking about. They were thinkin about people being able to criticize the King of England without being thrown in the stocks. Of course, when they replaced the King of England, and they had to deal with their own rebellions, like the Whiskey Rebellion, they made clear they were not talking about incitement to treason or acts of treason -- only criticism. From the very beginning, they distinguished that some speech can be a crime. Exhorting someone to overthrow the government is criminal, and always has been.

No, I don't think the Supremes determine exceptions. The Supremes should determine if legislation fits with the original intent (OI).

Yes, and they do that be determining if the legislation fits within an exception that the founders woud have intended. The problem is that legislation is enacted that the Founders hadn't considered when they enacted the First Amendment. So they engage in a very complicated analysis.

The 'hate speech' laws clearly violate OI

Prove it. Show me a statement by any of the people who drafted or voted to enact the First Amendment that indicates they felt that the First Amendment prohibits people from being receiving a harsher punishment when their speech reflects that the crime was committed with an improper motivation.

(Here's a hint: there's no such statement on record. You're just making it up when you think the First Amendment can't encompass hate crime legislation.)

 

[Saggy]

We have Racial and Religious Vilification legislation in Australia. Before today I never knew we were controlled by Jews.......

Sarcasm is misplaced here. I couldn't google up anything about the passage of the Australian law, but Jews are sponsoring these laws all over the world, and clamoring for their enforcement, as they are in Victoria

http://www.jwire.com.au/news/hate-law-in-victoria-no-prosecutions/8254

 

[Saggy]

Prove it. Show me a statement by any of the people who drafted or voted to enact the First Amendment that indicates they felt that the First Amendment prohibits people from being receiving a harsher punishment when their speech reflects that the crime was committed with an improper motivation.

(Here's a hint: there's no such statement on record. You're just making it up when you think the First Amendment can't encompass hate crime legislation.)

A crime with an 'improper motivation'? What's the proper motivation for a crime? This is just total nonsense, thanks to the Zionists. It is attempting to criminalize thought or state of mind. It is antithetical to US law until the Zionists started trying to pass laws to prevent criticism of Zionism.

Thankfully, they have not been completely successful yet, and we don't have laws like Australia's Racial and Religious Vilification Law, precisely because of the FA.

 

[marksman]

A crime with an 'improper motivation'? What's the proper motivation for a crime? This is just total nonsense

No, it's not. "with malice aforethought" is a common phrase in criminal law dating back to the 18th century, and nobody thought it was problematic under the first amendment.

The only difference between killing someone with or without "malice" is the thoughts behind the crime.

we don't have laws like Australia's Racial and Religious Vilification Law, precisely because of the FA.

Quite true. We don't criminalize speech (unless it exhorts people to break the law) when unaccompanied by other illegal actions. But we do punish people more harshly if their speech evidences that the reason they committed the crime is something the legislature thought worthy of additional punishment.

Calling someone a "honkey" is not illegal. Beating them up is. Beating them up while calling them a honkey may get you a harsher sentence.

Saying "I've planned this out very caefully" is no illegal. shooting someone dead it. Shooting someone while saying "I've planned this out very carefully" may be the difference for being convicted of manslaughter or the harsher crime of first-degree murder.

The problem you're having is not that hate crimes violate the First Amendment. It's that you don't think hate crimes should be dealt with more harshly than other crimes.

 

[Saggy]

The problem you're having is not that hate crimes violate the First Amendment. It's that you don't think hate crimes should be dealt with more harshly than other crimes.

My problem with hate crimes, besides being prima facie unconstitutional and a foot in the door to criminalizing thought, is that the are just a stepping stone to hate speech crimes. The Zionists are relentless in their efforts to expand the hate crimes laws to create hate speech laws, but have been thwarted by the FA, so far, you can read the adl links given if they ever come up to see it in print. With enough Zionists on the SC, we'll have hate speech laws.

Here is a Kagan quote ....

“Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

This in effect saying there is no FA, we can use our judgment to decide to ban speech if we want to. Typical Zionist cant. That's the whole point of the objection to Kagan of FA grounds.

 

[TSR]

Sarcasm is misplaced here. I couldn't google up anything about the passage of the Australian law, but Jews are sponsoring these laws all over the world, and clamoring for their enforcement, as they are in Victoria

http://www.jwire.com.au/news/hate-law-in-victoria-no-prosecutions/8254

.
Did you even read your source?

Changing Victoria’s laws will do nothing to affect hate crime unless police are prepared to act on the laws we already have, the Jewish community believes.

Doesn't sound like sponsoring to e.

And is your problem with these laws that you tnhink people should be allowed to target victims on racial grounds?
.

 

[marksman]

My problem with hate crimes, besides being prima facie unconstitutional and a foot in the door to criminalizing thought, is that the are just a stepping stone to hate speech crimes.

The slippery slope argument is weak. You might as well say that "criminalizing conduct" is a stepping stone to hate crimes. You'd be accurate -- after all, we couldn't criminalize hate speech until we first establish that we can criminalize anything.

Here is a Kagan quote ....

“Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

This in effect saying there is no FA, we can use our judgment to decide to ban speech if we want to.

Not only is it saying it, it provides historical evidence that all First Amendment jurisprudence has been a balancing test of some sort. She even goes further and shows logically why it can't be anything but a balancing test,because the First Amendment has an inherent conflict between acknowledging the ability of Congress to regulate and the fact that nearly all regulation affects, however, tangentially, the ability of people to express themselves. the coercive power of the State is inherently in conflict with the individual right of expression.

You may not like it. You may decide to be anti-intellectual, and hope beyond all reason and logic that a bright line could be devised between permissible regulation and impermissible infringement on speech. But what she wrote is not a remarkable statement.

Taking issue with this statement is to attribute to your Zionist bogeymen the position of coherent argument and logic. It also places you against those two things and that is a bad place to stand.

 

[Zach Aviv]

It's all about suppressing the truth about the Zionists, and they're after the First Amendment with hammer and tong . She starts out using words like 'normative' and 'propositional', she's an academic you know ....... but in just a few pages is railing against 'racists' and 'hate speech'.

She is doing well. The more we suppress the debate of our Zionism in the press the more we can further our agenda of hegemony.

 

[dafydd]

Saggy- do you know the difference between a Zionist and a Jew?

He doesn't even know the difference between his arse and his elbow.

 

[Saggy]

But what she wrote is not a remarkable statement.

It is an absolutely remarkable statement .... here it is ...

“Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

Let's parse it, when we do, the First Amendment to the Constitution disappears. It disappears functionally, that it, speech is not protected by the first amendment, it is decided by the courts on a case by case basis, by "balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs." But even before it disappears functionally, it disappears grammatically: the 'First Amendment' is a law, the First Amendment to the Constitution, however, in Kagan's sentence it becomes an adjective, "First Amendment protection", and a meaningless adjective at that. There is no difference between 'First Amendment protection' and 'government protection' or just 'protection'. Viola', the First Amendment has disappeared.

Of course you do not want to discuss the 30 year campaign by the ADL to circumvent the FA, and the way that Kagan has explicitly taken up that effort in the paper linked earlier, but, no matter, we have it in a nutshell in the sentence analyzed above, Kagan pretends not to understand the First Amendment in order to neutralize it.

 

[marksman]

It is an absolutely remarkable statement .... here it is ...

“Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

Let's parse it, when we do, the First Amendment to the Constitution disappears.

It's not remarkable. Even you acknowledge the First Amendment has exceptions that aren't written into the text. Determining where these exceptions begin and end is necessarily going to be a balancing test of some sort. That's all she's saying.

 

[Saggy]

It's not remarkable. Even you acknowledge the First Amendment has exceptions that aren't written into the text. Determining where these exceptions begin and end is necessarily going to be a balancing test of some sort. That's all she's saying.

In her statement the First Amendment is no longer a law, a part of the Constitution, for crying out loud, it is an adjective. It has disappeared. That's the Zionist goal. Then we too can have 'hate speech' laws like Australia.

If we looked at her statement in isolation, it might be explained as a casual misinterpretation, a curious error. In the context of the 30 year war the ADL has waged against the First Amendment to the Constitution, it is the current front line, where Kagan wants the discussion to take place, with the original intent of the First Amendment not part of the discussion, a historical footnote.

 

[marksman]

In her statement the First Amendment is no longer a law, a part of the Constitution, for crying out loud, it is an adjective. It has disappeared.

It absolutely has not disappeared and her article makes it very clear that the First Amendment is a real and serious impediment on regulation. I'm not the one taking her sentence out of context.

If we looked at her statement in isolation, it might be explained as a casual misinterpretation, a curious error.

It's neither -- it's an accurate statement of First Amendment jurisprudence, and one with which you agreed with when you acknowledged the First Amendments has exceptions not found in the text of the First Amendment.

 

[Saggy]

Kagan writes in reference to R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul in the paper 'Private Speech - Public Purpose'...

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Private-Speech-Public-Purpose.pdf

Indeed, half hidden beneath a swirl of doctrinal formulations, the crux of the dispute between the majority and the concurring opinions concerned the proper understanding of St. Paul's motive in enacting its hate-speech law.26 The majority understood this motive as purely censorial-a simple desire to blot out ideas of which the government or a majority of its citizens disapproved. The concurring Justices saw something different: an effort by the government, divorced from mere hostility toward ideas, to coun- ter a severe and objectively ascertainable harm caused by (one form of) an idea's expression.27

And she goes on to say

What I have argued in this Article is that most of First Amendment doctrine constitutes a highly, but necessarily, com- plex scheme for ascertaining the governmental purposes under- lying regulations of speech.

But it appears to me that motive was not really an issue because both opinions (majority and concurring) in R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul ruled the law unconstitutional. That is, it was an issue as to why there were two opinions, but the final judgment of both opinions was the same, and hence motive was not such a decision point.

???? Any insight into this ????

Another point .... from wiki ...

"Therefore, the Court accepted the Minnesota court's conclusion that the ordinance reached only those expressions that constitute "fighting words" within the meaning of Chaplinsky."

Thus the court had to interpret the law as applying to 'fighting words', which is completely absurd as that is not how the law is written, ..... but given that that was the case, then Kagan's claim was that the government motive was to 'blot out' ideas seems absurd, as one doesn't blot out ideas by proscribing 'fighting words'.

Again, any insight there marksman ????

The law provided, as per wiki ....

"Whoever places on public or private property, a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

 

[marksman]

it appears to me that motive was not really an issue because both opinions (majority and concurring) in R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul ruled the law unconstitutional.

That doesn't mean motive wasn't an issue. The majority and concurring opinions identified different motivations for the laws, each of which was deemed unconstitutional. That the outcome was the same doesn't change the fact that the reasoning differed. That's precisely why judges have the ability to write concurrences. if the outcome was all that mattered, every appellate decision would simply be a tally of votes with no explanation.

But because we live under a common law system, the judges have to write their reasoning down so it can serve as precedent for future decisions.

Thus the court had to interpret the law as applying to 'fighting words', which is completely absurd as that is not how the law is written, ..... but given that that was the case, then Kagan's claim was that the government motive was to 'blot out' ideas seems absurd, as one doesn't blot out ideas by proscribing 'fighting words'.

Sure it does... by broadly defining "fighting words", which is why the Court found the law unconstitutional. It found the statute's definition of fighting words too broad.

What exactly do you think is going on in the decision?

 

[Saggy]

The majority and concurring opinions identified different motivations for the laws, each of which was deemed unconstitutional.

The law was unconstitutional, not 'each' of the hypothesized motivations. That 'mistake' looks like another 'Kaganism'.... LOL ...

What exactly do you think is going on in the decision?

Starting from the beginning, the law is absurd. Prima facie unconstitutional, and that's not just my opinion, it's also the opinion of my conservative lawyer friend. As the petitioner claimed "therefore facially invalid under the First Amendment." Facially?

So, that's the start. Then the Minnesota court upheld the law saying it construed it in a way that "limited the reach of the ordinance to conduct that amounted to fighting words". Again, patently absurd.

So, it should never have reached the SC. Given that the court had to accept the Minnesota courts interpretation, the case was absurd. The court should have overturned the Minnesota court's decision (I have no idea if they have the power to do this, I'm saying that 'logically' that is what should have happened).

Instead it found itself with this cockamamie piece of crap on its plate and had to deal with it.

Then following wiki ...

The Court began its substantive analysis with a review of the principles of free speech clause jurisprudence, beginning with the general rule that the First Amendment prevents the government from proscribing speech,[8] or even expressive conduct,[9] because of disapproval of the ideas expressed.[10]

Well, there you have it. The First Amendment. Case closed.

No, wiki continues ...

The Court noted that while content-based regulations are presumptively invalid, society has permitted restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas, which are "of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."[11]

The reference [11] takes you to the Chaplinksy case which I presume is a 'fighting words' case. So, here we've reached the point of absurdity.

What is happening is that the Zionists are trying to conflate 'fighting words' with 'hate speech', and that's what they succeeded in doing here.

Yet, the court managed to find some way to squelch this idiocy this time.

 

[marksman]

The law was unconstitutional, not 'each' of the hypothesized motivations.

The law was unconstitutional because none of hypothesized motivations ascribed to the law passed muster.

As the petitioner claimed "therefore facially invalid under the First Amendment." Facially?

yes, facially. Facially means in contrast to "as applied". Which means some laws you can tell are unconstitution merely by reading the text. but some laws don't appear to be constitutional until you find out the context in which they are to be applied. Then you realize it's unconstitutional.

For example.
"Landowners must pay an annual real estate tax equal to the rate applied for AAA bond redemptions."

This statute seems fine. I mean, nobody likes taxes, but nothing in the language screams "unconstitutional".... until one were to discover that the "rate applied for AAA bond redemptions" was 100%. Then you would realize that this amounts to a confiscation of lan in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

That's the difference between "facially" and "as applied" unconstitutionality.

So, yes, this statute was "facially" unconstitutional because we didn't need to look to see how the statute was actually enforced to determine its constitutionality. "Facially" does nto mean "very".

Then the Minnesota court upheld the law saying it construed it in a way that "limited the reach of the ordinance to conduct that amounted to fighting words". Again, patently absurd.

So, it should never have reached the SC.

The reason we have a Supreme Court (and intermediate appellate courts) is because lower courts and state courts make mistakes.

What is happening is that the Zionists are trying to conflate 'fighting words' with 'hate speech', and that's what they succeeded in doing here.

Except Kagan isn't criticizing the decision to invalidate the law. She's just explaining the reasoning behind it. It's almost as if you're faulting her for even writing about a Supreme Court decision. There's nothing remarkable in this article.

 

[Saggy]

The reason we have a Supreme Court (and intermediate appellate courts) is because lower courts and state courts make mistakes.

But here the SC had to accept the Minnesota's court's absurd interpretation and rule on the original case. Awkward, I'd say. The SC should have overturned the Minnesota court.

Except Kagan isn't criticizing the decision to invalidate the law. She's just explaining the reasoning behind it.

LOL.

It's almost as if you're faulting her for even writing about a Supreme Court decision. There's nothing remarkable in this article.

The first thing that is remarkable is that Kagan is writing about the case that stymied the ADL in its march to US 'hate speech' laws. The second is that she is giving a completely bogus 'explanation' of the case that neutralizes the First Amendment, thereby paving the way for the ADL to send up more trial balloons till one passes, which certainly will happen with enough Zionists on the court.

 

[marksman]

But here the SC had to accept the Minnesota's court's absurd interpretation and rule on the original case. Awkward, I'd say.

It happens all the time. That's why we have a Supreme Court.

The first thing that is remarkable is that Kagan is writing about the case that stymied the ADL in its march to US 'hate speech' laws. The second is that she is giving a completely bogus 'explanation' of the case that neutralizes the First Amendment

The first is unremarkable. She's a legal scholar. Legal scholars comment on Supreme Court cases.

The second is untrue. You keep saying she gave a "bogus explanation" but the explanation is not only not bogus, it's an unremarkable statement about 1st amendment jurisprudence.