Moonbat Justice Jackson Upset 1st Amendment Could “Hamstring Government”

Seriously, that’s the point of the 1st Amendment on all points. That’s the point of the first 10 amendments. That’s the point of the Constitution. It says what government may do, and restricts them on the rest. In comes diversity hire Ketanji Brown Jackson

It literally starts with “Congress shall make no law …abridging freedom of speech… Congress passes laws. The Executive follows those laws. That’s the system. It doesn’t mean that the Exec can feel free to go rogue and coerce and limit lawful speech.

(Breitbart) Jackson had earlier presented a hypothetical situation in which social media platforms were allowing a dangerous trend to circulate in which children were encouraged to jump out of windows “at increasing elevations.” She asked whether government authorities could not “encourage social media platforms to take down the information that is instigating this problem.”

Aguiñaga suggested that the government could use the “bully pulpit” to push back against the content of the information, but could not call the social media platforms to encourage them, or coerce them, to take down the information.

Jackson objected, saying that it was not enough to say that the government could post its own speech. There were situations, she suggested, in which the government could “encourage or require this kind of censorship” necessary for public safety.

They can use their bully pulpit. Feel free. Coercing social media companies to remove posts that may or may not be wrong but go against Government Thought on things like, say, COVID, is expressly un-Constitutional.

ABC News “analysis” thinks the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the government

The Supreme Court on Monday appeared likely to reject strict limits on government contact with social media companies amid claims that federal officials had engaged in a “broad pressure campaign” to censor certain viewpoints related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 election. (massive snip)

Justice Amy Coney Barrett posed a hypothetical situation involving FBI calls to a social media platform urging it to take down posts that doxed elected officials, putting the individuals safety at risk. “That’s a problem?” she asked Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga, representing the plaintiffs.

“I’m a purist on the First Amendment, so my answer would be yeah,” Anguinaga replied.

Except, really, that’s not Free Speech, that’s putting people in danger, and pretty much all the social media companies have rules against doxxing. And, that’s the extent of any “evidence” that the Court will reject strict limits. Highlighting quotes by leftist justices doesn’t count. At worst, it will be a 5-4 decision in favor of the plaintiffs, with long rulings explaining that government is very much limited by that pesky 1st Amendment. Meaning the Biden admin, because there really wasn’t an issue with the Trump admin doing this. Even the Obama admin was not an issue. This will tell future Democrat admins that censorship is not OK.

And Jackson needs to be booted from the Court, if she doesn’t understand the Constitution, if she has so misread it, if she’s simply blowing off the explicit writing on the paper.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

21 Responses to “Moonbat Justice Jackson Upset 1st Amendment Could “Hamstring Government””

  1. Professor Hale says:

    There were situations, she suggested, in which the government could “encourage or require this kind of censorship” necessary for public safety.

    That is precisely the meat of this case, not a hypothetical. The government did indeed require this kind of censorship “for public safety”, AND THEY WERE WRONG. There will never be a real accounting of how many died who might have lived but for government meddling. Government bureaucrats are not faithful arbiters of truth, nor are any of the media companies, nor even the education system. Every child should be taught in first grade that everyone is always lying to them about everything and they should be taught to be skeptical until the facts are proven out. In an environment where government may coerce an approved narrative, the facts never come out.

    The sort of government that would engage in this sort of behavior is exactly the sort of government that should never have that much power.

    If the real problem here is access to children with bad or harmful content, maybe the government should block children from accessing the media that has such content. Like they already do, everywhere, when it comes to porn, alcohol, and tobacco.

  2. Matthew says:

    .gov has subverted The Constitution and its own laws for decades with near impunity. The only news here is that a SCOTUS justice somehow either didn’t understand or forgot about the memo, because she damn sure got it.

    The first rule of the multi-tiered justice system is…

  3. Hal P says:

    Not the first time that Brown has shown that she does not have a basic knowledge of the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
    Just another diversity higher

    • Professor Hale says:

      It is unfair to suggest she doesn’t have the knowledge when the most likely answer is she just believes totalitarianism, under the liberal aristocracy, is a better way (a way she will be a part of). And since she is from the party of “by any means necessary”, it is only logical that she would see her role on the court as an activist to make that happen. Her background tracks with similar justices who always rule in favor of the outcome they decide, instead of what the law requires. After all, those dead white guys were not gods. People of color today have opinions about civil rights that are every bit as valid as what those dead white slave-owning guys thought.

      When Democrats are in power, they ignore the laws that stand in their way and use all their powers to fundamentally change society to one they prefer. They appoint judges and justices who think the same way. So even if they know the Constitution front and back, they don’t feel obligated to it if it doesn’t serve their ends. That’s why there are so many 5-4 decisions. The laws, after 200+ years of operation, should be pretty well settled and not need further refinement. Every decision at this point should be 9-0. If the justices of the supreme court don’t agree with each other on the constitutionality of laws, then the rest of us can no longer hope to love in a country ruled by laws and not the fickle and arbitrary nature of the desires of any 50.1% temporary majority or a single judge striking down the obvious will of the people.

  4. Jl says:

    As I recall she didn’t know what a woman was, either

  5. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Of course, MAGAts and RFK Jr could stop lying. But lying is protected speech. The answer is to point out the lying liars and their lies.

    Free speech is not absolute, and it’s a fine line between permissible and impermissible.

    U.S. v. Alvarez (2012) – There is no general exception to the First Amendment for false statements.

    • Jl says:

      What? US vs Alvarez ruled that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was unconstitutional. The Stolen Valor Act was a federal law that criminalized false statements about having a military medal. (Wikipedia) So in other words it ruled that false statements were permissible under the First Amendment

      • L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

        I believe that’s because the stolen valor act was about misrepresentation and attempted fraud not about free speech. It was what he said not that he said it.

        Free speech is not absolute, and it’s a fine line between permissible and impermissible.

        Actually free speech is absolute with very few exceptions. The word “except” appears nowhere in the 1st amendment in regards to our free speech. The only time free speech is even considered is not absolute is when leftists control the courts. During the last two elections all the Democrats did was censor people interfere with their freedom of speech. That was part of the three prong system of stealing the election for them and it probably will be one in the next election.

        Just like firearms, speech never killed anyone. If you don’t understand that you don’t understand freedom at all. If you wanna know what freedom of speech really is just read teach’ masthead: If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Firearms never killed anyone?

          The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that free speech is not absolute.

          Defamation? Threats? Government secrets? Obscenity? Restrictions on what teachers can say? Any limits on public TV and cable? Deep fakes of Ivanka sucking black dicks?

          Would you allow “Jesus Was a Fag!” T-shirts in schools?

          Donald Trump is leading you guys off a cliff.

          • Brother John says:

            Would you allow “Mohammed was a pedo” T-shirts in schools?

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Nope, no Muhammad is a pedophile tees. Nor would I permit “Jesus Was a Fag!” Both would be antagonistic and disruptive. The Court has made it clear that schools and children exist under different rules even though the First Amendment is pretty clear.

            Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

            The Supreme Court has never interpreted the First Amendment as written, instead changing the interpretation with the times. The Constitution is not a suicide pact after all.

            Look at the Second:

            A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

            “shall not be infringed” is clear, yet the Court permits restrictions by age, venue, automatic action, mental fitness, history of violence, barrel length…

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Yes, that’s what was ruled in U.S. v. Alvarez. Read more carefully, please.

        • Jl says:

          I did. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said “false statements are not, solely because they are false, excluded from First Amendment protection.” He said the law, as written, would criminalize any false speech, even “personal, whispered conversations within a home”, and this was giving the government too much power.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            So you agree with me. I typed:

            But lying is protected speech.

            U.S. v. Alvarez (2012) – There is NO general exception to the First Amendment for false statements.

            This means that the First Amendment protects lies.

  6. Brother John says:

    A Supreme Court justice who doesn’t understand that the entire purpose of the Constitution is to hamstring government is someone who is manifestly unqualified for the job and should resign immediately.

  7. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Mr Teach wants to boot Justice Jackson off the court claiming she doesn’t understand the Constitution.

    By this time we should all recognize that the the Supremes make decisions based largely on their political beliefs and look for and use legalisms to justify their decisions.

    If the Constitution was soooo clear and instructive there would be few issues.

    • Brother John says:

      It is. What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?

      But let’s not pretend you (or any Democrat) gives a ripe shit what it actually SAYS — otherwise, we could all agree that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and the Department of Education should be abolished tomorrow.

  8. L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

    Sadly Brother John, this being the former United States an idiot POS like her will keep her job for life when she should be dragged out in the street and tarred and feathered along with the morons that recommended her and voted for her. She does disgrace to the United States of America.

    When are people finally gonna get tired of all these unqualified DEI hires almost all of whom are black females of little or no character or intellect? If we lower the bar any further it’ll be subterranean. Seems like every time you hear a screaming mouth it’s attached to a black female face.

    Bloodbath! The lies keep on coming and the BS keeps piling up.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:


      Would you also drag out Justice Thomas and tar and feather him? Or is it only Black females you find unqualified?

      Do you suspect she made it through Harvard and Harvard Law because she was a Black female? BA Harvard, magna cum laude. Supervising Editor of the Harvard Law Review, graduating in 1996 with a Juris Doctor, cum laude.

      While you were knocking up teeny-boppers she was working her way through Harvard Law and clerking for federal judges including Supreme Court justices. Her parents were big shots in Miami, her dad the attorney for the Miami-Dade school district, her mom a school principal and her uncle the Miami chief of police. I bet her parents are proud of her! That’s 4 years of college, 4 years of law school a dozen years or more working with federal judges… hard friggin’ work! How long is fireman school?

      We have 9 Supreme Court justices, so it’s a pretty exclusive group. How many firemen do we have in America? We have twice as many volunteer firemen as professional firemen and the total is just over a million.

      Being a fireman is good honest work and valuable. So are policemen, garbage collectors, doctors, nurses, store clerks, auto mechanics, soldiers, accountants, teachers, lawyers, scientists, pastors, veterinarians, IT experts, chemists, cooks, servers, school bus drivers, carpenters, plumbers, security guards, lab techs, etc.

      • Brother John says:

        Sing her praises all you want — her confirmation hearings revealed she’s either stupid or dishonest. This hearing reveals she is profoundly unqualified and stands in opposition to foundational American principles.

        And yes — she got where she is because she’s a black woman. President Sniffy Joe told us out loud and to our faces.

      • L'Roy White says:

        Elwood I have no idea what anybody else here thinks but I for one suspect that she made it through Harvard and anything else that she did including her appointment that Supreme Court by being a left wing black woman and nothing more. And every left wing black woman you see is the same way it’s like they have a cookie cutter somewhere.

        For some reason you find it necessary to degrade Brandon being a fireman at every opportunity you can. I don’t understand why and as a black person I resent the fact that you constantly idolize black people just for being black. I don’t care anything about what she supposedly did cause any anything she did she did because she was given help by being black and by being a woman and mostly by being a left winger.

        Look what they’re doing to Donald Trump. Outrageous penalties and fines trying to drive him into bankruptcy as well as prison for a non crime that was not proved in front of an all leftist court prosecuted by a person who ran her political career or in ruining Trump. How has the left become so corrupt that they can’t even administer justice fairly and equitably.. It’s a disgrace what they’re doing to Donald Trump his business and his family not because he’s done anything fatally illegal but because he’s Donald Trump. And you know it. And you love it. Because you’re all corrupt the left is gonna go if we don’t get him out of here they’re destroying the country they got us into three wars now. They’re throwing people in prison so that they can win elections. The cheating the corruption the lying OK? And they look it straight in the eye while they’re doing it.

        They keep telling us how much of A dictator and how horrible trump’s policies etcetera etcetera are and they seem to forget that he was already president for four years so we know what he’s like and he wasn’t a dictator and his policies were fine for America. The left cheated and stole the election to beat Trump and just look what they’re doing to him now!!!

        If joe shit in pants wins they are coming after us. It can’t happen here??? It IS happening here right now!

Pirate's Cove