Recently, a case was heard by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the Biden tyranny maladministration working with Big Tech to censor anyone who spoke against the narratives being put out. A lot of this was the suppression of people questioning the covid vaccines, the lock-downs, masks and other things.
We now know, thanks to Elon Musk and the Twitter Files that the previous management of Twitter was happily suppressing anyone who said anything negative about the Biden Regime, suggested that other treatments for Covid-19 should be investigated and also just general suppression of anyone who referred to Biden as Dementia Joe or supported President Trump.
Finally a case has reached the supreme court, and the justices did their usual reviews, hearings and questions. This is when the Biden Diversity Hire Associate Justice started asking questions that are leading people to believe that she is fine with suppressing the right of free speech if it goes against the Government’s narratives. Here are the details from Fox News:
The Supreme Court heard Murthy v. Missouri, a case challenging the Biden administration’s alleged coordination with Big Tech to censor certain messages.
The case stemmed from a lawsuit brought by Republican-led states Missouri and Louisiana that accused high-ranking government officials of working with social media companies “under the guise of combating misinformation” that ultimately led to censoring speech on topics that included Hunter Biden’s laptop, COVID-19 origins and the efficacy of face masks — which the states argued was a First Amendment violation.
I’ve written about this in the past of course, and there is no need to revisit it. The evidence is there that the Biden Maladministration actively suppressed the speech of anyone who got in their way.
As the justices questioned whether the Biden administration crossed the constitutional line, Jackson appeared to suggest that such actions can be justified.
“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” she told the lawyer representing Louisiana, Missouri and private plaintiffs.
Oh boy! Brown Jackson is showing how she views the Constitution. She appears to see it as a suggestion.
“And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information,” she continued.
“So can you help me? Because I’m really – I’m really worried about that because you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective, and you’re saying that the government can’t interact with the source of those problems,” Jackson added.
This is what happens when you put a diversity hire on the United States Supreme Court. As I recall her confirmation hearings showed that she was actually not competent to be on the Supreme Court. (Or any other court for that matter) However, she was a progressive, black female and the Democrats knew they could count on her to generally tear up the Constitution and give all power to the Government. In other words, the Democrat Party.
Her comments quickly went viral with dozens of people insisting that “hamstringing the federal government” is “literally the point” of the First Amendment.
Fox and Friends Weekends co-host Will Cain responded, “Hamstringing the government is THE POINT of the First Amendment!”
“That’s literally the point of the Bill of Rights. The government’s powers derive from, and are subservient to, the rights of the People,” California state Rep. Bill Essayli echoed.
“I would be more concerned if the First Amendment did not hamstring the government in significant ways,” said Reason senior editor Robby Soave.
“This is not funny This lady is dangerous,” podcaster Tim Pool wrote.
There were a lot of comments on Justice Brown Jackson’s complete misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment and the original purpose of the Constitution of the United States. The founding document of this great republic was written for the express purpose of restricting the Federal Government. (And to some extent, the state county and local governments as well)
It will be very interesting to see how this case is decided at the end of the term when the rulings are issued. I suspect it will be in favor of the 1st Amendment and against the Biden Maladministration. It will also be interesting to see how the justices vote. I think we can guess how ASSociate Justice Ketjani Brown Jackson will rule. I wonder if she will write her own opinion? If she and the other two liberals rule for the Maladministration, then they all need to be removed for cause. What else will they rule against?
The 2nd Amendment will be a forgone conclusion of course. I think we can say good bye to the 4th and 5th Amendments as well. Perhaps they will also rule that illegal aliens have the right to vote and run for office, including President. Am I just spinning another of my conspiracy theories? I certainly hope so, but we all know how these theories have been working out for the last few years, don’t we?
Thatisall
(3 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...
~The Angry Webmaster~
