Supreme Court Rookie Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Takes Sides with the US Government on Censorship
In typical leftist fashion, Jackson agrees with the anti-1st Amendment Policies of the O'Biden regime and its proxies within social media.
On March 4th of this year, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, 9-0 in favor of keeping Trump on presidential ballots, citing that the Constitution does not give states the authority to remove anyone from any federal ballots. We all remember the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of removing Trump from the presidential ballot for “insurrection” because of the January 6, 2021 protest at the US Capitol. In Illinois, a low level, Cook County judge followed suit as did the Attorney General of Vermont, with each claiming again, “insurrection” even though Trump has never even been charged with it, much less convicted.
We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office, but states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency.
Even if Trump was charged and found guilty of insurrection, there isn’t a state in the union that can remove him from federal elections.
If Ketanji Brown Jackson can rule with all the other justices because she obviously agreed with the Constitution, why would she have a hard time during the Supreme Court case, “Murthy v. Missouri” regarding the 1st Amendment? The statements she made during her questioning of the Louisiana Solicitor General are extremely shocking and completely out of touch.
My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways at the most important time. I mean, what would you have the government do?
I’ve heard you say a couple of times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe. Don’t do it is not gonna get it done. 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.
Supreme Court Justice
Ketanji Brown Jackson
The 1st Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights…the very bedrock of the founding of this country. And yet, Justice Jackson believes that the government is being hamstrung by the LA Solicitor General’s view of the 1st Amendment. She is basically saying the government has a right to not only censor the speech of the American people, but it also has the right to twists the arms of social media platforms such as Facebook and X to do the bidding of the government as well.
Her “reasoning” is that the “government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country,” from harmful information. If she feels this way about the 1st Amendment, why didn’t she feel that way about Trump being allowed on the ballot. According to the left, the entire country needs to be protected from Trump the “fascist, nazi, racist, misogynist, 91 times indicted, rapists.” In both cases, the Constitution is clear as hell, and yet she chose to rule with the Constitution on the ballot case, while seeming to side against the Constitution on Murthy vs Missouri.
If she is going to side with government censorship, who gets to decide which information is harmful? The government does, of course. The same government actors who lied about COVID 19 and the vaccine injuries and death that occurred. These are the very same people who were embedded within social media platforms demanding that citizens who were telling the truth be silenced.
Justice Brown Jackson does not get to play both sides of the fence here. There is nothing in the 1st Amendment that states the government should shut down the exercise of free speech to protect the people from misinformation, and she doesn’t get to change this fact just because it feels good. It says nothing of proxies being employed by government to do it either.
I realize that there has been no ruling on this case yet, but based on her comments during the hearing, it is safe to say that this ruling will not be a 9-0 in favor of the 1st Amendment and the Constitution even though it is required.