Oldsailor65 Loc: Iowa

Ketanji Jackson comments got 'even worse' after fretting over 'hamstringing'

Her demands include blind faith in government officials' 'perspective'
https://www.wnd.com/2024/03/ketanji-jackson-comments-got-even-worse-fretting-hamstringing/?utm_source=wnd-news-alerts.beehiiv.com&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=breaking-news-alert-3-20-2024-1

Ketanji Jackson, Joe Biden's only appointment, so far, to the U.S. Supreme Court, was the butt of a multitude of jokes and guffaws this week because she fretted about the First Amendment "hamstringing" the federal government's attempts to censor speech and thought.

After all, the purpose of the First Amendment was to control the federal government's attempts to censor speech and thought.

Her blunder came in Supreme Court arguments in a case in which people censored by social media companies – at the behest of the Biden administration – during C***D and more challenged the scheme on First Amendment grounds.

The evidence shows that Biden's bureaucrats worked hard to coerce social media companies to suppress, even banish, that speech and those thoughts that conflicted with Biden's agenda.

Jackson fretted, "My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods."

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND's Email News Alerts!

Is Ketanji Jackson among the worst justices ever on the U.S. Supreme Court?
100% (115 V**es)
0% (0 V**es)

Now a report from Margot Cleveland at The Federalist points out that wasn't even the worst of Jackson's blunders.

The report noted "even worse" was what she said shortly after.

"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," Jackson told Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga. Why couldn’t the government communicate with social media companies then? Jackson queried.

The report noted free-speech advocates "rightfully" blasted Jackson for her hamstring complaint, since her statement "laid bare the fundamental disdain she and other politically liberal justices hold for the classically liberal freedoms our Constitution protects."

Aguiñaga had responded that the government could communicate with tech companies but in doing so, must abide by the First Amendment.

"Lost in this exchange, however, was the horror of Justice Jackson’s premise — that the government outreaches would depend on federal officials' 'perspective' of 'threatening circumstances,'" the report said.

"Five years ago, that proposition might not have seemed so shocking because Americans hadn’t yet lived through the dual outrage of near-universal capitulation to the government’s requests for censorship and the wrongheadedness of the federal government’s 'perspective' of 'threatening circumstances.' Absent that lived experience, it might have been possible to imagine the government would only solicit Big Tech’s cooperation when truly faced with 'threatening circumstances,' or that the social media companies would refuse to remove third parties’ posts, absent a sincere danger," the report said.

But it explained the case's court record shows "the government’s 'perspective' of 'threatening circumstances' can be both dangerously wrong and politically motivated."

The report pointed to the evidence:

The federal government viewed anything prompting “v*****e hesitancy” as threatening public health. It also maintained that masking and school closures were necessary to protect Americans against C***d. These “perspectives” of “threatening circumstances” flowing from the p******c led the government to demand that social media companies block users and posts discussing adverse effects of C***d shots or arguing against masking and school closures. But the government was wrong about all of it, and those censored were right. Had the government not successfully silenced such speech, Americans would have been better armed with facts to make important health and public policy decisions.

Then there were the political motives behind the government's insistence media corporations block information about the New York Post's reporting on Biden family scandals uncovered in a laptop abandoned by H****r B***n.

"Once again, the banned speech was true, and Americans were prevented from learning vital information before the e******n due to the government’s efforts to persuade Big Tech to block supposed 'hack or leak' material. (Turns out, the H****r B***n laptop was no such material.)," The report said.

Jackson went even further astray from the Constitution, the report explained, when she insisted "we have a test" for the First Amendment, and it's not whether there's "abridgment" of speech.

Yet that's exactly what the amendment requires, the report notes.

Her earlier comment was, "My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods. … 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."

Fox and Friends Weekends co-host Will Cain confirmed, "Hamstringing the government is THE POINT of the First Amendment!"

And California state Rep. Bill Essayli, in the report, confirmed, "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."

Ketanji Jackson has proven to not be very intelligent....I'll bet she had one hell ov a time learning to spell...Ketanji Jackson ....so much for "DEI".
She might make a passable Walmart greater.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

She should have sat down in shame, and permanently remained silent after declaring herself unable to define what a woman was at her confirmation!

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Just Kamilla Kameltoe, Ms Katanji is just another example of what you get when you pick people for jobs based upon race and g****r alone.

F.D.R.

Other than just plain stupid I don't know what to call her since she herself doesn't know what a woman is.

Justice101

Good point!

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Interestingly enough, one of the other candidates, another woman of color, would have been a good choice. Yes, she leans liberal, yet, has a history of ruling toward Constitutional rights. She, apparently, was way to smart to be their choice.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

And I'll bet she knows what a woman is.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

As she is a southern woman, it is very likely she does.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Nothing like the southern women!!

TruePatriot49 Loc: The Democratic People's Republic Rhode Island

Kunta Kinte Jackson was only put on the Supreme Court because she checked the boxes for race, g****r and sexual orientation. The Republicans are also to blame because they didn't v**e against an obviously unqualified candidate. A so called woman who couldn't state what a woman is under cross examination isn't qualified to be a dog catcher. Most, but thankfully not all, of our elected Senators and Representatives in Washington DC are t*****rs to our country for not enforcing the Constitution. Hopefully this e******n will take out the trash and bring in people who really love this country, but I'm not holding my breath.