13

Elena Kagan’s dissent trashes Supreme Court as “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices”

Posted by  $  nickursis 3 weeks ago to Government
90 comments | Share | Flag

I am not sure I can ever understand a Liberal mini mind, she wants to make people pay for something they don't want or need or disagree with (yea, I know, it is the normal Liberal method) and she defends it as a 1st Amendment issue? I can't see that at all, freedom of speech would seem to include the ability to NOT pay for something you don't want, especially when it is a power hungry union who will take your money and give it to the very people they don't want to give it to. Now, banning all political contributions from ALL unions, might make this workable, but her premise is so far out there, it illustrates why you cannot have these people on SCOTUS, as they just rubber stamp any Liberal policy as good, and any restriction on government as bad. Good grief...
SOURCE URL: https://www.vox.com/2018/6/27/17510338/supreme-court-kagan-dissent-janus


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  blarman 2 weeks, 6 days ago
    Anyone who treats Kagan as a brilliant legal mind should be disbarred. She's a political/ideological hack without the ethics required to sit on the bench - as demonstrated by her refusal to recuse herself in cases she participated in as a government attorney. The only person less suited to sit on the Supreme Court is Sonia Sotomayor, who's ratings even by the ABA were dismal and hardly justifiable for someone to be sitting on the highest court in the land.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  TomB666 2 weeks, 6 days ago
      Obama gift that just keeps giving :-(
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 2 weeks, 6 days ago
        Yes. The one positive was that because he ruled by Executive Order, those can just as easily be undone. His SCOTUS picks were truly awful, however. Though I disagreed with the Merrick Garland pick from an ideological standpoint, Garland was far more capable as a jurist than either of these two.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 2 weeks, 6 days ago
    Clearing out the polititalk, and doublespeak, what it boils down to is this; in much simpler terms; A person is compelled by law to buy a product he/she doesn't want. Using the money from the sale of that product, the seller engages in politics that doesn't represent that person's beliefs. Kagan's diatribe seems to be saying, Hey, this has been in place for 40 years. Therefore it should be maintained.It's a variation of the majority is always right, ploy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 3 weeks ago
    Of course, Vox elaborates on all Kagan's fallacious arguments against the decision in great detail while only providing a link to the valid argument of the majority to overturn a bad law that forced people to pay for something they did not want (not "allowed" them to do so as the Vox article falsely contends.) The "contributions" are not contributions at all because they are not voluntary, any more than income taxes are voluntary. Calling them voluntary contributions does not make them so.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 weeks, 6 days ago
      No argument on the skew, but the 1st one I found was Yahoo, and I know you hate them, so I went looking for some confirmation from someone else. Funny, the conservative sies I looked at didin't seem to care what she said, but I find it telling that she wanted to spin the story, like everything else the Liberals side does, and is just a concrete stone on why the "politics" of a SCOTUS member should be "0", and their jurisprudence and Constitutional knowledge "100". Gorsuch is as close as they come, and if that is the kind of person Trump gets, then let them all resign.I would rather have a court full of Gorsuch's then this windbag politician in black robes.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jdg 2 weeks, 6 days ago
    If she really means it, she should put her money where her mouth is by resigning.

    She is also incompetent for not understanding that the case turns on the First Amendment because the choice to donate, or not donate, to political campaigns is an INDIVIDUAL right. The Court was wrong to make it a group right in 1934 (even under FDR's threat to pack the Court), and I'm very glad to have lived to see it corrected.

    Now we need a constitutional amendment setting a fixed number of seats on the Court, so no president can ever threaten to pack it again.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Herb7734 2 weeks, 5 days ago
      The fixed number is 9. If it were an even number there would be endless ties and no decisions. If more, how many? Nine is the perfect number.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  2 weeks, 5 days ago
        Fixed by: The Judiciary Act of 1869 (16 Stat. 44), also called the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, is a United States statute that stipulated that the makeup of the United States Supreme Court would consist of the Chief Justice and eight associate justices, any six of whom would constitute a quorum.[1][2][3] The Act was the last major piece of legislation to alter the size of the Supreme Court; since its passage, the Court's legally provided size has remained at nine, without interruption.
        Though Roosevelt threatened to increase the number to get what he wanted through, by altering the law, and since he had huge leverage in numbers, he could have and then "packed the court". Whether that was a bluff or not, it worked. The real problem is they need something like an oath of celibacy when they are appointed "to execute the law as related to the Constitution with no regards to politics" or some such. Then they can be removed if they violate it such as this bag of guts.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jdg 2 weeks, 4 days ago
          You're missing the point. The Constitution is the only place the number can be fixed so that Congress can't change it at whim. As it is now, they can. Both FDR's and Obama's threats to pack the court would have involved doing just that.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Herb7734 2 weeks, 5 days ago
          Celibacy?
          A little extreme, wouldn't you say upon further consideration.The problem is that whoever is chosen will pass any test. They are knowledgeable,and smart. Plus there's no telling what they'll do once they get in. Kennedy is a perfect example. Just gotta hope they are Constitutionalists.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  2 weeks, 4 days ago
            Celibate to this rule: "to execute the law as related to the Constitution with no regards to politics" . That would seem to meet your criteria. But fundamentally Constitutionalists, since that is what they are using as a guidepost. That is why Gorsuch is so good, he never hid the fact he was a person there to follow the laws and written and reflected by the Constitution, and when they conflicted, he took the Constitution and said so. Maybe Trump can find a clone....
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by jdg 2 weeks, 2 days ago
              I find such a rule meaningless. The court's opinions are full of convoluted so-called reasoning to justify whatever they want to do as "following the Constitution", and more than half the time its self-serving nature is blatant, since no one is in a position to call them on it. It's like the idea of objective journalism -- there's no such animal.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  2 weeks, 2 days ago
                Yes, that is true, that is why we need judges like Gorsuch who look at the Constitution to give them primary guidance and then look at any following decisions with a jaundice eye.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 weeks, 6 days ago
      Exactly, and neither of our corrupt parties will cut themselves off at the knees for that reason, they need the weapon. For politics, not the Constitution.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 2 weeks, 5 days ago
        It's always for politics, even for those who are (supposedly) non-partisan. I think the best thing in the long run is to eliminate parties altogether. Everyone is their own party.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  2 weeks, 4 days ago
          I can go with that, that would seem to be the idea behind Independents. The Party power is what draws people in, hoping they can use that leverage to get what they want, for themselves and for us. Too bad "us" usually do not want what "they" do.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Casebier 2 weeks, 6 days ago
    Take Kegan's dissent, modify slightly, roll back 160 years and substitute slavery for mandated labor union fees. You have the same arguments made by southern slave owners: Anti-slavery actions overrule citizen choices, are not accommodating for less stringent local and state laws sought to resolve the issue, "...does so even though the government services affected—policing, firefighting, teaching, transportation, sanitation (and more)—affect the quality of life of tens of millions of Americans." What an idiot.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 2 weeks, 6 days ago
    The case should not have turned on first amendment but Freedom of association and property rights. These people were being forced to associate with the union and robbed of their property. 1st amendment is a pretty weak argument....but what the heck, if it worked, so much the better.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jdg 2 weeks, 4 days ago
      Completely disagree. In the union shop I once worked in, nobody was forced to join the union. We were simply forced to pay dues whether we joined or not, and to work under the contract they negotiated "on our behalf" whether we joined or not. That's all about freedom of speech and contract, and has nothing to do with association.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by evlwhtguy 2 weeks, 4 days ago
        Did you not see the part of my answer where I said "robbed of their property."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  2 weeks, 4 days ago
          I would say both apply equally making it a bigger grievance. Just like SS and other "taxes" the forced removal of your earnings is a crime and is theft. Unless you decide to give it up, it is always theft. The fact your money is stolen and then given to a political party you donot support is an added bonus insult. SCOTUS is completely correct, but the old SCOTUS didin't care as long as the Cabal got what it demanded from them. Corruption, pure and simple.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 weeks, 6 days ago
      Actually it does work in their convoued thinking, as this was the same group that gave corporations the right to free speech as "citizens" and all the donations they can throw to buy politicians as "speech". So, if you do not agree with where your union is throwing your union money at, and it has been declared free speech and protected, then you have an abridgment of your rights.Better answer: Ban all donations except from individuals.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by evlwhtguy 2 weeks, 5 days ago
        Corporations are nothing more than groups of people...ergo they are people. While I would not be adverse to your proposal to only allow individuals to donate....it would require a change to the constitution.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  2 weeks, 4 days ago
          You make my point "groups of people" vs "individuals". The groups, act as one and leverage large resources and can throw thousands at "theri guy" making him "thiers", the individual (subject to limits) cannot make anyone "theirs". Which means the politician then has an incentive to appeal to as many people as they can to get the most donations. Now, its screw the people in favor of a few large donors. Hence, corruption, and it has spread everywhere.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  exceller 3 weeks ago
    The four on the Supreme Court - Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer - never think of the Constitution or the content of what they are judging. What matters is they must vote in favor of the left.

    I have bad news for Kagan and the others: by the resigning of Kennedy, there will be one more conservative voice on the Court. Then these four can continue stewing in the mud of their liberal beliefs. They will be irrelevant.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 3 weeks ago
      Irrelevant until the next liberal president replaces only one constitutional judge with a liberal one who feels her bias is more important than the law she pledged to defend and uphold.
      I only hope that Ginsberg and Breyer are retired before that happens and during the term of a pro-constitution president (if there is such a thing.)
      More importantly I hope that a brave state legislature challenges and defeats the prevailing opinion that the supremes have the power to overrule state laws. I'd love to see CA do so and unleash the pro-constitutional wrath of all those who have tolerated federal overreach for the past 100 years. States rights is 150 years overdue for a rebirth. Regaining the powers guaranteed by the 9th and 10th amendments is paramount to individual liberty.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 6 days ago
        states rights introduce a certain amount of competition into government, and are a good thing. the federal government could be scaled back to almost zero- leave it to the states to compete for citizens.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  2 weeks, 6 days ago
          The problem is when the Federal level of manipulation moves to the state level. Example: Oregon has no sales tax, Washington does, yet a WA resident has to pay income tax on income earned in Oregon, but a OR resident can be exempt from sales tax if they show their Oregon ID. Yet both states have huge populations of Liberals who vote as a block and have condemned the state to constant Demcrats who tax, tax tax, and all to feed that same block their PERS money, making all the rest of the state irrelevant. There is no competition between states at that point when it is single party rule, and 3 states worth of non Liberals cannot up and move. The Left coast is essentially the same place, same problems, same causes. Same for the East coast. Federal could be scaled back tremendously, but you will still have the same problems, until you can address the "block issue" and it usually revolves around the outrageous retirement plans and the fact the Democrats use that as bait and blackmail to keep one party rule. The idiots who vote for them care only for their drug (money) habit, like a colony of heroin addicts being asked to go straight, they would and do reject the notion. So, we keep feeding their habit year after year, and their corruption goes on. AKA in the South America model of government. Gangs are next...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  2 weeks, 6 days ago
        Im nort sure Ginsburg will outlast Trump, although if a liberal gets in, we may see a rise in "accidents". That seems to be how they get their way. I fully believe Scalia was murdered to open a slot to get their guy in before Obama left, to prevent a change in the Court, and they didn't bank on the Republicrats actually getting a spine and saying "no".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  exceller 3 weeks ago
        Do you agree with CA's "sanctuary state" law?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 5 days ago
          I think its fine as long as we build the wall AROUND california, or they secede from the USA. We also have to cut all welfare ties with them, as they will suck the rest of us dry
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by freedomforall 3 weeks ago
          I think I disagree with it- haven't read it, only news about it. But I'm not a CA resident so it's their issue, not mine. Eventually they will destroy themselves if they don't come to their senses. States rights allows competing ideas in the states and if the feds don't waste time and money bailing out the evil and/or stupid, then the results of competition define the best course for others. Its not a perfect solution, but its better than a federal one-size-fits-all dictatorship. The morons must be allowed to cut themselves out of the gene pool for mankind to make progress. Wasting effort saving morons (or evil looters) from themselves encourages them to continue doing so, e.g., the banksters have been bailed out repeatedly for decades and they just rinse and repeat, stealing from everyone else again and again.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  exceller 3 weeks ago
            The question is how far the moron/stupid can go in State governance? Many in CA think Jerry Brown is a good governor. NJ just elected another "more taxes are beautiful" lefty.

            When we look at it from a distance, it is none of our business. I don't care if they destroy themselves. But in the process many others perish who disagree with this hell-bent destruction. Not everyone can pack up and leave, there is a downside to that as well.

            Merely pointing out that the issue is controversial.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  2 weeks, 6 days ago
              It is, but the other part is their virus spreads like poison, New York infected CT and NJ, Ka infected WA and OR, so it does have an impact when the zombies gather in one place and then spread their poison.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by freedomforall 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                Primarily because the feds have funded the spread and encouraged the spread. That is because the feds have illegally taken the powers that belong to the states. States rights can and will take that power back from the feds, but the people have to withdraw their consent to their own slavery.
                Let NY, CT, MA, MD, CA, WA, and OR bankrupt themselves. Without financial support from the corrupt feds and corporate looters that will happen in less than a decade. Those who dislike socialism and do not live by looting will leave those socialist states as Galt and the Gulchers did. Let the rest drown in the excrement that gets deeper each time they speak their evil statist propaganda.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  2 weeks, 6 days ago
                  Hmmm.. well the Feds right now are in full bore "withdraw" mode in liquidity, which will crimp a lot of money tossing, Interest rates will rise (they want to raise them 2 more times this year) and China is crashing the Yuan to force Trump to deal or see the dollar implode as it value goes up and up. So, the money angle is probably in for a big change and there won't be a lot to fund the crazy stuff....maybe...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by freedomforall 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                    I do not see a more valuable dollar as a problem. The amount of dollar appreciation is trivial compared to the value the dollar once had vs other currencies. Please explain what you mean when you say the dollar will "implode" by going up in value. Implosion infers a decline in value to me. Wall St constantly puts out a load of bullshit (including their commentary on the dollar) as a cover story for their share price manipulations.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  exceller 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                  There is another point here that I was made aware of only recently. Many people relocate from CA to TX. Friends I have there complained that they bring their lefty liberalism with them. Even though these people were conservatives by CA standards, the fringes that is CA rubbed off of them and by Texans they are not welcome.

                  So in the long range it is evening out to the benefit of the left, unless a solid core of conservatism can me saved.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by freedomforall 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                    They move to places where they are welcomed by others of their kind. Houston, Dallas, and Austin all voted for Hitlery. Texas cities are little different from other cities in the US. They have been co-opted by the public school system, not by former Kalifornians. Of all the big cities in the US, only about 10% of them voted for Trump. 90% voted for Hitlery. (More and more women in high local and state government positions has hastened the shift to socialism more than emigration from CA.)
                    I agree, it will take a lot of work to restore the sanity of the American electorate after 50 years of teachers who have lied and been propaganda mouthpieces for socialism.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jim_rusnak 2 weeks, 5 days ago
    It is Justices like Kagan and Sotomayer who try to legislate from the bench. Some how they must be removed to be replaced by Justices who apply the Constitution's provisions to the cases heard. We must drain the swamp in DC if our nation is to survive. Let us pray for devine intervention.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 2 weeks, 6 days ago
    Kagan's dissent is really no different (in mindset) from the original Roe vs. Wade decision's logic. I admit I've not actually read the entire text of Roe v. Wade, but I have read that the decision (that a woman has a "constitutional right" to an abortion) was justified by asserting that this fictitious "right" was based on "privacy" that was implied in the constitution, and the phrase they used was that the abortion right was right there, in the "penumbra" of rights. As any student of physics (optics) knows, a "penumbra" is just a fancy three-syllable word that means "in the gray area" (the actual meaning has to do with the "gray" shadow cast behind an object by a distributed light source, not a point-source; there is a partial shadow cast where only part of the light source is obscured). So, by using the "big intellectual" word (penumbra), they tried to obfuscate the fact that there really is no "right to abortion" in the constitution. But because they WANTED there to be one, they just "read in between the lines" and "inferred" that there was a "gray area" that they could "interpret" to mean anything they wanted. Roe v. Wade was pure judicial activism at its worst. Kagan is no different - the facts be damned, she will "decide" issues based on her pointy-headed, leftist ideology and not on the actual constitution.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 weeks, 6 days ago
      A better argument might have been a 1st amendment one, Art1 Sect 8 should have limited all this, because abortion is not an enumerated power, or part of the Federal responsibility, it is a medical procedure that is an individual choice. Right or wrong, the state should not be allowed to endorse or prohibit it. Let the churches and social geniuses argue it out.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 2 weeks, 6 days ago
    Kagan sounds like a dingbat. That aside, the title here grabbed my attention. Just yesterday a coworker asked me what I thought about a new justice being appointed w Kennedy's retirement. I said, "Well, it's just another example of a new person in a costume that a majority of people are eager to comply with." Does it matter? Sure, I guess so. But, when you're going to go Galt it's almost a positive. My colleague asked me who might be appointed. "Dennis Rodman" (much laughter from my office mates...)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 weeks, 6 days ago
    The more outrageous the lie, the easier it is to believe it. I've heard that from psychologists often. The more sensational the claim, the more people tend to at least say "Wait. What?" It's a common practice for liberals of any stripe to state as fact (without any proof) things like "The vast majority of the American people are in favor of . . ." insert the latest liberal tripe. Some even go so far as to state a fabricated percentage (97% being the favorite) as though that garners their statements more credibility.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 weeks, 6 days ago
      Exactly, just like "Everyone knows" , I haven't met Everyone but he/she must be a genius, as they know everything. Just ask everyone. Those terms immediately invalidate all that follows.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by IndianaGary 2 weeks, 4 days ago
    From Kagan's dissent: "And at every stop are black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices. The First Amendment was meant for better things. It was meant not to undermine but to protect democratic governance—including over the role of public-sector unions." The First Amendment was meant to curb government encroachment of citizen's rights, not to "protect democratic governance". It's clear she has no idea what a constitutional republic is and has no business on the High Court.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 weeks, 4 days ago
      Exactly so. It is clear, yet the manipulated millions will all scream she the the SCOTUS SJW who is fighting the evil right. She is a poster girl for the Cabal and it's mission to destroy the Constitution as free people cannot be ruled by the few.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo