Kagan Sounds Like Commissars Of LibFascist CHRC

 Elena Kagan wants to make inconvenient speech "disappear"

Obama's pick for the Supreme Court of the US scares me... it's obvious that she plans to rule according to the dogmas of Liberal Fascism instead of the law, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

She sounds no different from the Charter-trampling, rights-revoking Canadian "Human Rights" Commission.

Which is why the extremist Liberal Fascist Obama wants her at the SCOTUS- to shut up people who dare to dissent against The Agenda.

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.

Imagine the reaction of the Left if a Republican nominee had said something like that!

She sounds like a Chinese Communist!

THIS is the extremist Obama wants at the SCOTUS!

Where's the alarm?  Where's the Big Media hollering about the taking-away of civil rights and about state tyranny?

Oh, but, of course... we're talking about "progressives" here, so the Big Media will just get all warm and fuzzy, like, "Isn't it wonderful to have another woman at the SCOTUS?  We're sure she'll be excellent, especially since The Mess... *ahem!*... President Obama picked her!"...

That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and … actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Eh?  WTF is that utterly nonsensical gobbleddygook of which she wrote?  Must've been smoking something mighty potent with Comrade Barry-O in Chicago at the time!  (Yup, they go a-ways back... in Chicago, like sooooo many of the dangerous-ideologue revolutionary extremists Obama's been appointing).

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "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."

Obviously this extremist sees the Constitution as inconvenient and wants to deem when it does and doesn't apply to whomever, whatever... according to the ideology of the Extreme Left.

See the ideology of this nominee?  Clearly NOT a "judge" at all, but a social-reengineering extremist.  A Liberal Fascist.  Unacceptably dangerous!

Don't forget that she's never even been a judge before.  No experience as a judge.  She's not ANY kind of judge, quite obviously!

The Agenda here is clear.  The Agenda is to criminalize, to punish, any speech deemed inconvenient by The Regime.

A little more each day, tyranny tightens its grip upon America...

SEE ALSO:  Kagan SEGREGATED patriotic, pro-military students, treated military recruiters as "second-class citizens"

"we have never seen as dire a threat to students' rights, and the constitutional rights of all citizens, as Elena Kagan presents"

So... HATEFUL... so... ANTI-AMERICAN...

Obama picked this... HATER... for the Supreme Court?

Imagine if a Republican had segregated, say, GLBT students...  Imagine the Left's reaction...

Her move was driven by personal feelings, owing to her homosexuality and her political position with respect to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"...

A YAF news release Monday evening declared: "She forced students to meet with military representatives off campus or in a segregated part of the campus, essentially telling these young people to 'get to the back of the bus.'"

Harvard's ban on military recruiters preceded Kagan by several decades. The reason: The Armed Forces would not allow openly gay soldiers to serve.

In 2002, after 9/11 and up against mounting pressure from the Bush administration, the law school relented and agreed to allow the on-campus visits.

Kagan, however, rose to become dean of the school one year later.
Kagan openly expressed her passionate opposition to allowing the visits, even calling the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy "a moral injustice of the first order."

She punishes innocent people for personal, ideological and political reasons.  She uses innocent people as pawns to fight her personal and political battles.  This is wrong, hateful, arrogant, illegal, unconstitutional, criminal... and DANGEROUS!

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that she was wrong!  See, her judgement is BAD!

See, someone who'd act in that capacity according to her personal, ideological and political beliefs and feelings... CAN'T BE TRUSTED TO BE IMPARTIAL AS A JUDGE.

The risk, the danger... far too great to allow this hateful extremist to be appointed to the SCOTUS.

Someone with such an intense ideology WITH A RECORD OF IMPOSING HER PERSONAL VIEWS ONTO OTHERS cannot be permitted to rule on serious matters that affect the lives of real people.  Her power would be absolute and she'd be unaccountable.  This is why she's too dangerous.  The Left would say this about a Republican, and Leftists wouldn't be shocked by the Left's using language like mine to oppose the appointment of a Republican they didn't want to see appointed to the SCOTUS.