Leftist Social Activism in the Hopey McChange Courts: The Obligatory Kagan Post

OK. Now, at last, for the obligatory "All-Conservative-Writers-Must-at-Some-Point-Address-Kagan" time here at Wakepedia. (As if I can really do something about all this, and other aspects of the nation falling into utter disrepair, including arguing whether Kagan's legal insights hold some kind of disdain for Constitutional law.)

Let the words speak for themselves:

“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.”

~ The Libs' apparent 'Best of the Best' of their judicial gene pool, Obama's SCOTUS nominee, Elena Kagan.

So, really? Nonsense.

 Perhaps it's a tough call sometimes vis-à-vis the First Amendment on things like libel, slander, and "fighting words." But her argument at the time as US Solicitor General was basically that some things (her statement was in regards to a 2009 case involving animal cruelty, arguing for the Petitioner for the United States, on writ of certiorari) are just beyond the pale and could cause more societal harm than any good that might be maintained by holding to a strict First Amendment interpretation covering all manner of imagery or words, etc. But the US Supreme Court at the time recognized that this--no matter how reasonable-sounding--was a door to government oversight of speech in other areas.

“Consensus builder” Elena Kagan in an earlier thesis for The Daily Princetonian:

 “Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness.”

Sorry. While Capitalism didn't always seem terribly fair to everyone in yesteryear or today, Socialism has no "glory" to speak of, dear. Unless you're into human misery, terror, starvation, and death. Or, more likely, just enjoy stepping on people's heads as a True Believer that this will alter human behavior for a better world. Here we get the crux of the problem: Social activism. Specifically, social activism in the courts as the method for "social change", i.e., modifying behavior.

Even the Statist Socialist Lite version yields deprivation, and a type of cosseted poverty, and the massive bureaucratic machine needed to sustain the beast is an ever-larger portion of the economy next to an ever-shrinking private sector in those place tried, like Western Europe betting against time and demography they can keep the Social Democratic Ponzi scheme going before the whole "highly advanced" social engineering experiment called "The Continent" turns into My Big Fat Greek Funeral.  Ditto for Britain, unfortunately.

Per "Progressives", it seems, why of course a USSC nominee should be a Globalist lawyer. Why not? We'll get around to the actual Constitution some other time, I suppose. If the First Amendment is shaky ground for Kagan, her take on the Second Amendment might be a case for confusion or contradiction, as there are both "unsympathetic" and supportive statements from her on this matter as well.

The Left is often heard to say that we conservatives would reject anyone to the left of Robert Bork. Untrue. We liked Bork for the strict Constitutionalism he might have brought. Though they certainly Borked Mr. Bork well enough with phony baloney about returning blacks to separate lunch counters and water fountains, the back of the bus, and then the dark dirty back alley for abortions. It was all hyperbolic muck, of course, but it worked, and one supposes that when it comes to some Lefty agendas all is deemed fair in love and war--and politics (which is seen as a combo of both on some occasions).