Instapundit on the Kagan hearings

He actually links to another law professor’s live-blogging.

From the comments:

Interestingly enough in the last several years there have been four big SCOTUS cases which IMHO, really define our freedoms and personal liberty Kelo property rights; Citizens United free speech; Heller 2nd amendment and now McDonald.

I hear a lot from liberals about how the right wants to curtail freedoms, we’re fascists yet when I look at where the liberal Justices ruled or dissented in those aforementioned cases I think it’s pretty clear who are the real curtailers of freedom and liberty.

After all when the State can take your property, restrict your political speech and disarm the populace, you really don’t have much left in the way of freedom.

I’d like to know what Kagan’s opinions are on those cases.

Me too, though I think I can guess.

9 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

9 responses to “Instapundit on the Kagan hearings

  1. Anon

    To be fair, one could argue that Citizens United protected the free speech of corporations at the expense of the free speech of individuals (and that is only if you come to the conclusion that spending money = free speech). A different reader could easily come to the conclusion that this opinion was not protecting free speech, but rather an absurd result of the extension of the doctrine of corporate personhood…

  2. Anonymous

    Absolutely, Anon — and let’s not forget that conservatives who bitch and moan about activist judges nearly all applauded the decision in Citizens United, which overturned nearly 100 years of standing precedent. If that’s not activist judging, nothing is.

  3. Anonymous

    CF, was sort of hoping to see a post today about the NY Times article on the failure of austerity in Ireland. That country implemented exactly the kind of programme that American conservatives are calling for now, and instead of sparking private-sector growth and paving a path for recovery, the austerity regime in Ireland prolonged the economic downturn, deepened unemployment and made it harder for the Irish government to borrow money from international investors.

    Of course, the implication in the article is that stimulus is an effective way of combatting economic downturn, so it goes against the Party Line on this site. That’s probably why I won’t see any discussion of it up here today!

    Or, we’ll have the always-brave out of hand dismissal of the article because it came from the dreaded New York Times. (I’m always curious to see when I’ll see actual evidence that they’ve misreported the facts, or deliberately omitted some truths that would disabuse their readers of their preconceived notions. But I guess it just holds for you that since you disagree with their editorial line on a lot of issues, then their reporting must be biased! If that were the case, a good number of liberals would never read the news side of the Wall Street Journal. Oh well, it’s conservatives who are so open-minded, right!)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/business/global/29austerity.html

  4. diva4ever

    Anon,
    The NYT article clearly says Ireland cut public spending and RAISED taxes! The tea party movement and other fiscal conservatives in the US argue for the lowering of taxes, especially on small businesses. This is really no different from what Reagan did in the “80s–and guess what? It worked!

  5. Anonymous

    Well, diva4ever, I suggest you go back and read some history. The US had deficits during the entirety of Saint Reagan’s administration, and his 1986 bipartisan Tax Reform Act raised taxes. “And guess what? It worked!” Haha!

    So the Tea Party wants to cut spending, but not Medicare and Social Security, and it wants to cut taxes. You guys have no idea how an actual economy works. Stick with the diva stuff, leave the economics and history alone.

  6. Anonymous

    As for what Reagan did for “small businesses,” your Great One put through the largest corporate tax increase in American history. You simply don’t know your history!

    Corporate taxes were raised in 1986 by $120 billion over 5 years, and $300 billion in corporate tax loopholes were closed. The deficit tripled under Reagan. Tripled! And the net number of federal workers went up! 61,000 workers, while that net number of federal workers fell by 373,000 under Clinton, who also, by the way, brought us a massive budget surplus through — NO! — modest tax increases on the highest earners.

    Read. Your. History.

  7. diva4ever

    Anon,
    You seem to be even more of a diva than me! I do know know my history. Reagan did cut the marginal tax rates–that’s what ERTA was all about. I’m not a tea party member but I think anyone concerned about the exploding deficit can agree that it’s obvious that Social Security age will have to be raised and/or individuals will be subjected to some sort of means testing. Not surprisingly no one wants to talk about these things during an election year. Anyway, the point of the NYT article is why austerity (and increased taxes, which you fail to mention) is crippling Ireland’s economy. Let’s stick to that point.

  8. Anonymous

    Diva,

    No, “ERTA” (by which I assume you mean the 1986 Tax Reform Act) was not “all about” reducing the marginal tax rates, though that was a part of it. The other part of it was a massive increase in corporate taxes. Conservatives conveniently leave that part of its history out, and the fact is that Reagan was pilloried by the right for it at the time.

    But I’d like to know what you mean when you said at 7:30 “guess what – it worked!” If by “worked” you mean that Reagan ran deficits every year of his presidency, then, yes! Bravo!

  9. Anonymous

    Also not sure if this means you supported the 2009 stimulus, one-third of which (yes, one-third) was tax cuts. Taxes are also at their lowest point in nearly 50 years, while the incomes of the wealthiest Americans have grown exponentially since about the early 1980s.

    Just wondering where all those “concerned about the deficit” were during the Reagan years, and why they weren’t marching on Washington from 2001-2008, and why they’re all of a sudden up in arms.