Ketanji Brown Jackson Betrays Liberal Mindset with Very Stupid Question

[boxcar]

Note to Ketanji Brown Jackson: The First Amendment Should ‘Hamstring’ the Government. That’s the Entire Point.

Ya think? But it looks like Ms. Jackson never got the memo. Some juicy excerpts:

“So, my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” Jackson said.

The Supreme Court justice presented an extremely unlikely hypothetical that most American young people would find very insulting. She presented a scenario in which young people took cellphone video of their peers jumping out of windows, and that trend went viral on social media (preposterous), Big Tech companies failed to take action on their own (very unlikely), and the government wanted to stop it.

She asked Aguiñaga, “What would you have the government do? I’ve heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, ‘Kids, this is not safe, don’t do it,’ is not going to get it done.”

Absurd is as Absurd does! So, first she betrays her mindset about the "lowly masses". These mighty fine, highly educated kids, in her hypothetical, are so stupid that they would just blindly follow the Pied Piper. (Was she implying that America's best and brightest stars were all MAGA followers?) And this means, of course, those kiddies all need saving -- from themselves!

And then this:

Jackson suggested it would be unjust for the First Amendment to limit the government’s actions in addressing a hypothetical crisis, but the First Amendment expressly exists in order to hamstring the federal government.

As Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said in response to Jackson’s concern about the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government, “that’s what it’s supposed to do, for goodness’ sake.”

The amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The amendment does not include a “crisis-exemption clause” allowing the government to trample on free speech if the president declares a national emergency. If it did, President Joe Biden might declare a national emergency on climate and strong-arm Big Tech into censoring opposition to the climate alarmist narrative. He might declare a national emergency on the nonexistent “epidemic” of violence against transgender people, and pressure social media to ban any disagreement with gender ideology.

Then this quip by the writer of the article:

If the First Amendment is good for anything, it should “hamstring” the government from silencing Americans in order to push its own propaganda. Jackson, as a sitting Supreme Court justice, should know that.

Then again, if she can’t define the word “woman,” perhaps Americans shouldn’t be surprised if she doesn’t grasp the fundamental purpose of the First Amendment.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/...-entire-point/

[Tom]

Clearly she s not fit to be a judge at a bake sale, let alone the SC.
A Biden bitch.....perfect.

Need to start assemblig in front of her home, follow her and her fsamily, you know, LIKE THE DEMS DID.

Drive that bitch out.

[davew]

Originally Posted by Tom

Clearly she s not fit to be a judge at a bake sale, let alone the SC.
A Biden bitch.....perfect.

Need to start assemblig in front of her home, follow her and her fsamily, you know, LIKE THE DEMS DID.

Drive that bitch out.

then the DOJ would find that law they failed to enforce a couple of years ago

[Stevecsd2]

Yes there have been dumb teenagers and young people posting "dare" or "challenge" videos that could be dangerous. Two that come to mind are eating Tide pods or other detergent pods and the ones where people jump out of the back of a moving boat. In the latter I think a couple of young people were hurt or killed doing that. I know there have been other ones that resulted in a bad outcome.

However, other than a government agency posting a warning and maybe collecting statistics about that the First Amendment would most likely prohibit forcing the social media company from deleting those posts, in most instances. There is settled case law as to what the government can prevent or delete. Katanji Jackson needs to take a refresher course on First Amendment case law.

The massive government actions during COVID in coercing social media companies to take down or prevent posts is way beyond the pale. It needs to stop. Their actions prove they don't believe in the American concept of freedom. Allowing freedom means allowing people to be wrong, stupid or not in step with the majority.

[Tom]

The gov has free speech, too.
Let them use it, as it was intended, to promote their ideas/
But anyone who sdupresses free speech must be stopped by whatever means neccessary.

A gov that supressses speech cannot be toleratec or oneyed.

[OntheRail]

Originally Posted by davew

then the DOJ would find that law they failed to enforce a couple of years ago

In less than a New York minute... when Rats are targeted they has that shit on speed dial.