|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Supreme Court Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson is getting some attention for stating that, “my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.”
But the only problem there is that Jackson was dumb enough to say the quiet part out loud in which the Supreme Court, notably including Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh appear to be leaning on the idea that the government has a right to tell companies to censor particular individuals for political reasons, as long as the government doesn’t do anything more than say it, without making further blatant threats to the company.
Yes, Jackson is terrible, but consider the obnoxiousness of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Elena Kagan and Chief Justice John Roberts snickering together about the idea of government censorship.
“I had assumed, thought, experienced–government press people throughout the federal government who regularly call up the media and berate them,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said, while acknowledging that some of the government messages to the platforms referring to them as partners were probably not common in dealings with traditional media.
“Like Justice Kavanaugh, I have had some experience encouraging press to suppress their own speech,” Kagan said as Kavanaugh and others in the courtroom chuckled. “This happens literally thousands of times a day in the federal government.”
“I have no experience coercing anybody,” Chief Justice John Roberts chimed in, also prompting laughter.
Hilarious.
Between Roberts, Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the media’s court reporters seemed to think that lower court rulings barring the White House from telling social media monopolies to censor views they don’t like are doomed.
And it sounds like they’re right.
While Kentanji Brown Jackson may have said the quiet part out loud, a whole bunch of even the ‘conservative’ justices agree with her that it would be dangerous not to let the government tell social media monopolies to take down certain political views and that the First Amendment should not get in the way of government censorship.
And at that point the First Amendment is effectively null and void.
Yeah, historically government interference in free speech is almost an invariant.
Yeah, thank goodness we have Greenfield here to teach John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh how the First Amendment works. Awesome job, Daniel!
Thank God we have Dickshorn here who has never read the First Amendment or any other.
Totalitarian minded little scumbag. “Allahu akbar!”
So, what are we now, but a tyranny? Who needs these black robed gigglers in a tyranny? What balance of power? Theres no need to review constitutionality when the constitution is a laugh riot. The federal government controls speech and not even the states, btw.
Will the First Amendment be ruled null and void? No, such a Supreme Court ruling would itself be null and void, subject to reversal by the Second Amendment.
We can only hope. We currently suffer an unelected President and his handlers who’ve plunged America into a toilet bowl, so I doubt it.
The left have gone from fighting against Anthony Comstock to ultimately becoming Anthony Comstock.
And those justices aren’t conservatives. They’re 19th century Hamiltonian progressives who are as much an enemy of Jeffersonian conservatism as the left is.
They are part of the pre-Trump GOP, which even members of the Daily Wire such as Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro, are part of.
They do far more damage than the left ever could. Because they have a view of my back.
Once, a chipping hammer was used to slowly carve away fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution, using these foundational chips to pave the way for the authoritarian political state. Now, Justices laugh while they consider taking a jackhammer to them. The revolution will come or America as we’ve know her is finished.
Tyrants will always be worried about “hamstringing the government.” That’s what motivated the Founders to come up with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I fear that in the minds of many, such restrictions to govt over-reach have become an annoying inconvenience.
“Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it is dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action” (George Washington?). It was this realization which prompted James Madison to design the Constitution as a cage to strictly confine the scope and extent of federal power. It was also the source of Benjamin Franklin’s warning that the Constitution had created “a republic, if you can keep it.”
All right hamstring the feral government – just like they were intended
Roberts has guilty secrets to keep out of public view.
Yes, he’s a Dirtbagocrat.
Quite possibly, but we won’t know until he is long out of the Court. By that time it will be our grandchildren who know, the few who know enough about American history to care at all, and even they won’t care much. But whatever his secrets are, they have mortally wounded the Republic, and all he can do is smirk. The bass turd.
The plain and simple truth is that we the people of the United States have lived in a post-constitutional America since June 28, 2012. On that date, John Roberts and four other lifetime-tenured, hyper-politicized lawyers posing as impartial justices rendered the entire U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights null and void when they invented ex nihilo the federal government’s right to dictate the life and death healthcare choices of 300-plus million Americans. Through their affirmation of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), these judicial saboteurs completed the decades-long transformation of our nation’s founding document from a security pact among the sovereign states and their citizens into an instrument of surrender to an omnipotent, coercive government. The subsequent weaponization of the FBI, DHS, NIH, EPA, IRS and numerous other alphabet agencies against law-abiding, liberty-loving citizens reflects the decay of what was once a self-governing republic into a nascent police state (ref. www.newguardsforliberty.com).
Freedom is an individual right. The framers of the Constitution sought to organize a government that derived its specifically enumerated powers from the states and the individual people, and provided a framework that moral men could use to perform those few powers responsibly. As the corruption of power has debased and deformed to federal government in ways that the founders feared, but could not prevent, it will fall to individuals to stand up for freedom in our land. We must, as much as possible, use the lawful tools available to us to beat back the tyranny of venal, greedy, stupid, and corrupt elected officials, government employees, and the hirelings of oligarchs who drive their actions. But, as sure as winter comes, we will each be faced with individual infringements in the days to come. Whether we defend our rights or succumb to the assault of the vandals will, in the aggregate, determine the fate of our republic.
Well said, Old Fogey.
Did they ever find out how Scalua really died?
These are the Justices of our highest court? One (the one who cannot say what a woman is because she is not a biologist) doesn’t understand the foundational basis of our country, its Constitution, or the Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment) and the others quoted above don’t understand the government conveying to a media organ its displeasure with something it wrote and the government telling a platform not to publish something I wrote with which it diagrees, making the platform the government’s agent in doing something the government is forbidden to do. God help us.
If some little snowflake complains because they overheard you saying so called Hurtful Words tell them that Freedom of Speech beats out their stupid little feelings and to also keep their fat little noses to themselves
Now all these towering legal cacademics find the nanny state in the Constitution. Nah…. It’s just the deep state!!!