MR. GREGORY: ... What, what does she mean for the overall direction of the court? ... Is she a liberal or is she a moderate?No, it wasn't!
SEN. SCHUMER: I--look, I think she's--she tends to be a moderate when you look at her writings. But I think that's less important. When the president called me and asked me what was the number one criteria [sic] for a nominee--this was before he chose Kagan--I said I think it should be somebody who will be in the majority of five rather than the minority of four; someone who'll have the--not only the intellect--and everyone says she's brilliant--but the force of personality, the practicality to try and create coalitions. I think a lot of us, at least on the Democratic side, were shocked by the Citizens United case, for instance. And...
MR. GREGORY: Just remind people, this was about political contributions.
SEN. SCHUMER: This is the case that said unlimited corporate money could flow into our politics undisclosed in any way....No, it didn't!
... and it's really--I mean, the First Amendment's important, but so is the sanctity of our political process, so that the average person has a say. And I was shocked at this.And I am shocked at you and Gregory deliberately misleading viewers. Deliberately or ignorantly. I'm guessing deliberately. At least for Schumer. Gregory might be a dunce. I don't know.
Maybe a Kagan on the court could have persuaded a Justice Kennedy that the practical--you know, the abstract notion of First Amendment triumphs everything has a balance, and the balance is the practical effects of that. And my hope would be she would do it, and that's what I'm looking for.What? I have this TiVo'd, so let me check. That is what he said, word for word. I think there should be another dash, after "triumphs," but it's still damned near incomprehensible. I'm guessing he meant: Justice Kennedy thinks the abstract notion of the First Amendment triumphs, but in fact, abstractions should always be balanced against real world practical effects, and if Kagan were on the Court she might persuade Kennedy to move away from abstractions and focus more on real-world effects.
That's something some people want to say about constitutional interpretation, and that's fine. Say it. But: 1. Say it clearly, and 2. Don't LIE about what the real world effects are.