Justice Jackson ripped for worrying about the First Amendment 'hamstringing' government: 'Literally the point'

[LumRaiderFan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

A sitting SCJ that doesn't understand the Constitution, smh.

I feel like she's channeling Obama when he called the Constitution a "charter of negative liberties".

From the article:

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. 

"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.

Her comments quickly went viral with dozens of people insisting that "hamstringing the federal government" is "literally the point" of the First Amendment.

[SmashMouth]

2 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

A sitting SCJ that doesn't understand the Constitution, smh.

I feel like she's channeling Obama when he called the Constitution a "charter of negative liberties".

From the article:

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. 

"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.

Her comments quickly went viral with dozens of people insisting that "hamstringing the federal government" is "literally the point" of the First Amendment.

Although shocking, I'm not surprised. And she's there for life... Let that soak in.

[BS Wildcats]

1 hour ago, SmashMouth said:

Although shocking, I'm not surprised. And she's there for life... Let that soak in.

The same justice that can’t define a woman, yet supposedly, she is one.  Liberals are a whole different breed!

[SmashMouth]

8 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

The same justice that can’t define a woman, yet supposedly, she is one.  Liberals are a whole different breed!

More than just liberals. The further leaning left adhere to "Progressive" policies which are more extreme than your left leaning liberal. She is a progressive by definition, and she is dangerous.

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, SmashMouth said:

More than just liberals. The further leaning left adhere to "Progressive" policies which are more extreme than your left leaning liberal. She is a progressive by definition, and she is dangerous.

She, and her ilk, are definitely dangerous.  They are concerned about the rights of the government being infringed rather than the individual's.

Folks like this hate the Constitution because it's a stumbling block to their agenda.

[Reagan]

6 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

A sitting SCJ that doesn't understand the Constitution, smh.

I feel like she's channeling Obama when he called the Constitution a "charter of negative liberties".

From the article:

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. 

"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.

Her comments quickly went viral with dozens of people insisting that "hamstringing the federal government" is "literally the point" of the First Amendment.

I agree!  This is why she was put on the Court.  But let's not forget the fact that there are two others that was put on the Court by Yobama to do the same thing!  The Constitution to these people is like the Cross is to Dracula and the devil!!  

[tvc184]

I listened to part of the oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court.

 This was from the opening statement (I think) by the NRA. 

Taking Petitioner's allegations as true, that is what Respondent did here. In the Lloyd's meeting, she explicitly threatened to bring an enforcement action against Lloyd's unless Lloyd's "ceased providing insurance to gun groups, especially the NRA."

 The claim is that Maria Vullo from the NY Department of Financial Services, with regulatory authority over insurance, companies and others, coerced the insurance companies to cut ties with insuring the NRA and others because Vullo didn’t like the NRA’s political speech. 

NY’s stance is that telling or suggesting that insurance companies cut their affiliations with those groups for purposes of “political speech”, is not against the First Amendment and free speech. Then to do so at the threat of possible regulatory actions against the insurance companies.

 Things that make you go hmmmm….. 

So a guy is standing on the sidewalk stating his political belief about some issue. A cop comes along and tells him, if you don’t stop giving your opinion, I’m going to find a reason to put you in jail.

Now the officer has not stated a specific crime that you might have committed but he’s going to do his best effort to try to find a reason to put you in jail because he doesn’t like what you were saying. Is that coercion or just a suggestion which is what I drew from NY’s claim. 

Violation of free speech?

Along comes Brown Jackson who is having a hard time determining if that is coercion or just giving a talk on the importance of reputation. Like a member of the government can say under the First Amendment, people should take more Omega-3 fatty acids (typically in fish) because it’s heart healthy. That would be free speech and the pork industry would not have free speech grounds to deny that statement from the government. 

Brown Jackson’s suggestion in the oral arguments was that even though you have regulatory authority over an industry, is it okay to just suggest that it’s in their best interest if they stop insuring a company because you don’t like their political speech? So her query was, is it really coercion to tell people that the government “might” take action against you if you don’t stop insuring people due to their political speech or is it really a person making a suggestion such as, we recommend you cut down your body mass index.

I guess if she has a hard time defining a woman, she has an equally hard time with a government official threatening a person, but the other person should just take it as a well-being suggestion.