SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan has argued before the Supreme Court that it’s fine if the Law bans books.
Because the government won’t really enforce it.
I’m no legal scholar but this sounds like a 3rd grade argument.
Aren’t our nominees suppose to have better reasoning skills and a solid grasp of the U.S. Constitution? As well as a fundamental understanding of such concepts like Freedom of Speech?
I haven’t even mentioned that she is pro-abortion and same-sex marriage, but her argument isn’t helpful in her case to be the next Supreme Court Justice.
Deal W. Hudson holds the same view as I do and that is:
Now we learn she is oblivious to the worst excesses of the government’s power to ban free speech, i.e., the distribution and reading of books.