In other words, because we don't know [Elena Kagan's] views, let's put out hypothetical questions that imply that she might be against free speech. I mean, she hasn't come right out and said that she's in favor of free speech, so let's assume the worst through disingenuous, leading questions. Sort of like the old Karl Rove-ian push polling. Run for cover, America, Obama's Supreme Court nominee is looking to overthrow the First Amendment.That's a fair assessment.
Journal-Sentinel calumnist P. McIlheran fears teh Liberal Fascism (a.k.a. War on Christmas). Little does he know the remarks of Elena Kagan's he alludes to (third-hand: more impeccable scholarship) were made directly in the context of legislative attempts to mitigate (actual) cross-burnings and revoltingly brutal pornography and not, e.g., the beloved judicial election-quality protected speech.
Odd, because Robert Bork examined similar questions and found no First Amendment protections, to enormous conservative Republican acclaim. Since when did the right-wing rescind Bork's beatification?
If McIlheran was intellectually honest and consistent, he would distrust — as he always does — Obama's implied assurances that he's selected a Justice as liberal as her predecessor, John Paul Stevens.
And if you don't trust Obama — as McIlheran never does — then the Court will, as a necessary consequence of Obama's false assurances, move to the right. That is, the wingers ought to be celebrating.
But like I said, if honest and consistent. So forget it.
Frightful Fascist Flashback: Obama emptied all the prisons, also.