This Washington Post editorial entitled “Elena Kagan: Hostile to free speech?” discusses Kagan’s opinion regarding freedom of speech. The author had a vested interest with regard to this when he was involved in a Supreme Court case which pitted Citizens United versus the FEC. Kagan represented the FEC. This case resulted in a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The 5-4 decision resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air via video on demand a critical film about Hilary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act. The author of this editorial won the case, but is wary of what is to come should Kagan be elected.
This relates to what we have studied in government in that it is talking about the judicial appointment process for the Supreme Court. Bossie says that Kagan is unfit to take a place on the Supreme Court due to her disregard for the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. Bossie argues that she does not regard grassroots interest groups as being constitutionally protected, which would skew her interpretations of Supreme Court cases.
We believe that the author has some very valid point in questioning Kagan’s views on free speech. In the appointment process, her involvement in Citizens United v. FEC should certainly not be overlooked. However, we do take this article with a grain of salt, as the author is incredibly biased because of his involvement in the case.
Mary M. and Chris D.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.