JUST IN: US Supreme Court Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson Just Defended The US Government Violating the 1st Amendment

[PeterPilot]

Which is what they did here which is why the court is going to side with the government.




She isn't there to rule on that.




Which wasn't done.

You are probably right that the court will side with the government. My point for years has been that SCOTUS' purpose these days is NOT to be the last bulwark against tyranny as Madison romantically saw it, but very much the opposite, to enforce tyranny and abusive government. The court did that with the Brunson v. Adams case last year, and it will in this case formally declare that the First Amendment and other parts of the Constitution are hereby declared Null & Void. Right out of Orwell.

 

[pknopp]

You are probably right that the court will side with the government. My point for years has been that SCOTUS' purpose these days is NOT to be the last bulwark against tyranny as Madison romantically saw it, but very much the opposite, to enforce tyranny and abusive government. The court did that with the Brunson v. Adams case last year, and it will in this case formally declare that the First Amendment and other parts of the Constitution are hereby declared Null & Void. Right out of Orwell.

They are ruling whether or not the government can state a position. Is it a risk they will take thing further? Absolutely but that isn't how the court works.

I wish their rulings would be more expansive to save addressing things later but they just won't.

They are going to rule on what happened, not what might happen in the future.

 

[para bellum]

Not even a Leftists can come here and defend her

Very telling.

I will just sit back and wait for the moron justice Brown to say that our natural rights come from government and not from God, like her minions in the media have already stated.

These people are wacked, but it just goes to show how Left wing extremism has taken over the country.

Okay, well if the leftists can't defend her I will give it a shot.

She did say that, but it is being taken out of context. She was posing a hypothetical (which is completely normal in oral arguments).

Her hypothetical was this:

"Suppose there is a viral challenge on social media that asks teenagers to jump from increasingly greater heights.

Is this something the government has a duty to step in and try to prevent?"

In that context, she was suggesting that a prohibition based on the first amendment could "hamstring the government".

I think it was a fair question, I can't really find fault in her asking.

 

[San Souci]

Dam right. They all have fat asses and loud ,nasty voices. No wonder black men prefer white or asian girls.

 

[PeterPilot]

They are ruling whether or not the government can state a position. Is it a risk they will take thing further? Absolutely but that isn't how the court works.

I wish their rulings would be more expansive to save addressing things later but they just won't.

They are going to rule on what happened, not what might happen in the future.

And what happened is that the government pressured social media to suppress truthful statements by medical professionals so that the government's own propaganda regarding the entire Scamdemic could dominate social media. The court will here be defending the public dissemination of medical and scientific falsehoods.

Is that where the court wants to be, defending propaganda and lies?

Is the independent federal judiciary really the last bulwark against tyranny as Madison saw it, or not?

 

[pknopp]

And what happened is that the government pressured social media to suppress truthful statements by medical professionals so that the government's own propaganda regarding the entire Scamdemic could dominate social media. The court will here be defending the public dissemination of medical and scientific falsehoods.

Is that where the court wants to be, defending propaganda and lies?

Is the independent federal judiciary really the last bulwark against tyranny as Madison saw it, or not?

Sadly there is little in repercussions when the government lies.

 

[PeterPilot]

Sadly there is little in repercussions when the government lies.

One of the repercussions is that so few people believe a word the government says today. The veil has been ripped aside, and large portions of the public now understand their government lies to them all the time.

Is that a repercussion or not?

You're right that the system will not punish its own, so in that regard there are no repercussions, but the complete loss of faith in constitutional governance is also a repercussion, for better or for worse.

 

[pknopp]

One of the repercussions is that so few people believe a word the government says today.

And yet continue to re-elect those in government so I hardly feel too sorry for those who do so.

The veil has been ripped aside, and large portions of the public now understand their government lies to them all the time.

Is that a repercussion or not?

You're right that the system will not punish its own, so in that regard there are no repercussions, but the complete loss of faith in constitutional governance is also a repercussion, for better or for worse.

A repercussion? No.

As I noted the same old same old will largely return year in and year out.

 

[hadit]

I wanted to take some time and read on this case. After careful reading, it's going to go the way of the Biden administration.

This was an issue of the administration stating an opinion. There was no coercion noted in the case. Neither side argued the administration ever took any actions against anyone.

The administration is indeed permitted to state an opinion. Their opinion was that sites hosting news/opinion should take a stronger stance against positions they found wrong. They can indeed do that. Now if they had taken any actual action against a site that did not, things would be different.

There was no evidence presented that they took any actions against anyone.

That's not even significant in this. It IS significant that a SC justice has stated something antithetical to the intent of the Constitution and is in a position to enforce that incorrect view on the nation.

 

[pknopp]

That's not even significant in this. It IS significant that a SC justice has stated something antithetical to the intent of the Constitution and is in a position to enforce that incorrect view on the nation.

It's going to be a majority decision.

 

[hadit]

It's going to be a majority decision.

She has 11% of the vote. You and I, by comparison, have 0%. We do not want 11% of the Supreme Court to think it's a problem that the 1st Amendment restricts the government's power to silence speech.

 

[pknopp]

She has 11% of the vote. You and I, by comparison, have 0%. We do not want 11% of the Supreme Court to think it's a problem that the 1st Amendment restricts the government's power to silence speech.

She will be in the majority decision.

 

[hadit]

She will be in the majority decision.

I hope and pray that her opinion on the 1st Amendment is NOT in the majority, or we're screwed.

 

[PeterPilot]

And yet continue to re-elect those in government so I hardly feel too sorry for those who do so.




A repercussion? No.

As I noted the same old same old will largely return year in and year out.

Yes, young fools replace the old fools in believing their vote actually represents control of the government.

Voting is very much an illusion of control of government.

 

[beautress]

Shocking that someone that clueless is on SCOTUS. She knows less about the law than Obama

The other justices should outvote a fellow Supreme Court Justice who advocates pursuit to allow the protective Constitutional Freedom of Speech Amendment be nullified/violated for any reason.

 

[the watcher]

The Constitution is unconstitutional. Nothing is easy in the star spangled banana republic. Got the best SJWs working on it.