Skip to comments.
JUST IN: US Supreme Court Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson Just Defended The US Government Violating the 1st Amendment During Arguments in Case Sen Rand Paul Calls “the most consequential free speech case in U.S. history”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/ ^
| 3/18/2024
| Patty McMurray
Posted on 03/18/2024 1:09:29 PM PDT by bitt
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-102 next last
1
posted on
03/18/2024 1:09:29 PM PDT
by
bitt
To: null and void; aragorn; EnigmaticAnomaly; kalee; Kale; AZ .44 MAG; Baynative; bgill; bitt; ...
2
posted on
03/18/2024 1:09:50 PM PDT
by
bitt
(<img src=' 'width=30%>)
To: bitt
3
posted on
03/18/2024 1:12:12 PM PDT
by
rktman
(Destroy America from within? Check! WTH? Enlisted USN 1967 to end up with this💩? 🚫💉! 🇮🇱👍!)
To: bitt
“ My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government‘
that’s the whole purpose of the bill of rights.
To: bitt
Just in?? I don’t know much about the case, but it does not take a genius to know how that idiot will vote. Nor the other three liberals.
5
posted on
03/18/2024 1:15:31 PM PDT
by
odawg
To: bitt
The woman is the poster child for the expression “elections have consequences”.
6
posted on
03/18/2024 1:15:47 PM PDT
by
sjmjax
To: bitt
Does she really have so little understanding of what the Bill of Rights is about?!
7
posted on
03/18/2024 1:16:01 PM PDT
by
utahb52
To: circlecity
Time to start and impeachment movement.
8
posted on
03/18/2024 1:16:56 PM PDT
by
Dutch Boy
(The only thing worse than having something taken from you is to have it returned broken. )
To: bitt
Yes, Justice Brown, the whole point of the First Amendment is a constraint AGAINST so called government approved speech. If the government is allowed to designate approved speech for one reason, justices will in time extend that to any reason the government chooses. In the end, by judicial fiat alone the SCOTUS wll have redcated out the First Amendment to the Constitution.
9
posted on
03/18/2024 1:18:28 PM PDT
by
Wuli
(ena)
To: utahb52
"Does she really have so little understanding of what the Bill of Rights is about?!"
Not lack of understanding as lack of regard. I assure you, people like her will be the first to squeal if the tables were turned.
10
posted on
03/18/2024 1:19:27 PM PDT
by
Tench_Coxe
(The woke were surprised by the reaction to the Bud Light fiasco. May there be many more surprises)
To: bitt
There’s that pesky constitution again...
11
posted on
03/18/2024 1:20:13 PM PDT
by
LeoTDB69
To: Tench_Coxe
To: bitt
To: bitt
“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?”
Sit down, shut up and celebrate the wisdom of the founding fathers in establishing free speech into our Constitution.
To: bitt
So the government can be stopped from uttering a word?
15
posted on
03/18/2024 1:23:58 PM PDT
by
Az Joe
(Live free or die)
To: LeoTDB69
There’s that pesky constitution again...(Liberal mind) It a guideline, not hard and firm laws sillies.
16
posted on
03/18/2024 1:25:01 PM PDT
by
llevrok
(“In a time of deceit telling, the truth is a revolutionary act.” ― George Orwell)
To: bitt
But she’s not a biologist!
17
posted on
03/18/2024 1:26:20 PM PDT
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(The worst thing about censorship is █████ ██ ████ ████████ █ ███████ ████. FJB.)
To: bitt
Ketanji Brown Jackson was appointed to the SC just for cases like this. She will help hold down the liberal female trio token appointees.
And yes, her comments are chilling.
If the SC sides with the government, then it's a no brainer that ALL websites that do not tow the government line will be attacked and closed down.
18
posted on
03/18/2024 1:26:46 PM PDT
by
ducttape45
(Proverbs 14:34, "Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.")
To: bitt
Well, considering that her opinion is a direct violation of the constitution that she has sworn to protect, our house judiciary committee should write out articles of impeachment against her and have her impeached for violating her oath.
Oh wait... That would mean having the House of Representatives do their their constitutional duties...
That ain’t gonna happen
19
posted on
03/18/2024 1:27:03 PM PDT
by
joe fonebone
(And the people said NO! The End)
To: bitt
This woman has to be the most dangerously stupid human being to ever by on the court.
20
posted on
03/18/2024 1:27:44 PM PDT
by
Dave911
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-102 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson