Judge Jumanji Concerned 1st Amendment Hurt's Government's Ability to Stop Free Speech

[Bill]

Affirmative Action Jackson in the hoooouuuuussse, y'all!

Twitter

Justice Jackson Says 1st Amendment Is "Hamstringing The Government" In Efforts To Censor Speech
Joel Abbott
· Mar 18, 2024 · NottheBee.com

BREAKING: Supreme Court justice discovers why the First Amendment was written:

My biggest concern is that your view has the 1st Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways...

Uh, well, yeah, that's literally the entire reason it was created, but proceed.

...in the most the most important time periods.

By which you mean the periods of time that the government wants to silence the speech of those who dissent with an official government position, like, say, the Stamp Act of 1765?

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, "Kids, this is not safe, don't do it," is not gonna get it done.

Won't someone think of the kids?

Everyone knows only the government cares about kids, which is why they colluded with Facebook, Google, and Twitter to shut down the speech of anyone (even experts) who countered the government's narrative about Covid, school shutdowns, or the vaccine.

The kids were really helped by that. Thanks, government!!

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 can not manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.

Well, see, back in this year called 1776, there was this "harmful information" called the Declaration of Independence that had some philosophical ideas about people governing themselves. The government was quite upset by this and felt it had the duty to "take steps to protect the citizens" of its American colonies and that looked like this:

I'm really worried about that, because you've got the 1st 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.

Holy moly that is a SCARY quote. Read it again.
Yes, that's literally what the 1A says!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If the government can stop what you say, why not stop who you are allowed to pray to or who you are allowed to meet or any type of protest against the government at all?

I really can't understand how someone this ignorant can sit on the Supreme Court, but I'm not a biologist so I dunno.
Yo Justice Jackson, the 1A was written with you specifically in mind!
Thanks for proving the Founders right!

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. - CS Lewis

The most upsetting thing about this is, you'd think this would be so embarrassing for Jumaji she would resign, but of course, she won't. I wonder how her fellow justices look at her? Compared to her, the Wise Latina is a literal genius, so I guess at least one justice is good with it.

[vettemed]

Don't
Expect
Impartiality

[Aerovette]

Hamstringing the ability to censor free speech.

That is a sentence that really needs to soak in. Just contemplate what that says and I think you'll agree that the appropriate response is "Well that's just a fkng shame now isn't it?"

Censor free speech... and then

[Bill]

[Vette40th]

I dont think we will win this one. It seems they are looking to see if someone was "harmed".
She on the other hand is pure DEI

[Swany00]

pathetic

[Torqaholic]

Probably going to move to Africa when she learns the 1st Amendment is protected by the second

[LATB]

Originally Posted by Torqaholic

Probably going to move to Africa when she learns the 1st Amendment is protected by the second

Oh. Snap.

[Yadkin]

That's clearly grounds for impeachment.

Article II Section 1: The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior
Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour...

If only these clowns had some balls:

Article I Section 2: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other
Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

And were backed up by these clowns:

Article I Section 3: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

[LATB]

You are correct Yadkin, she should be impeached immediately. But we k know that will never happen to a black female judge.

[Kevin68]

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

-C.S. Lewis

The rest of that C.S. Lewis quote:

The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

[Vette40th]

The rest of the Judges seemed off as to what the problem is with this..
I am concerned we the people are screwed due to a lackluster group of lawyers.

[Yadkin]

Originally Posted by LATB

You are correct Yadkin, she should be impeached immediately. But we k know that will never happen to a black female judge.

That will almost never happen to any judge. In fact, it's only happened once since 1790. And then Senate didn't vote to remove.

A second supreme resigned under threat of impeachment.

In 1804, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach Associate Justice Samuel Chase. A signer of the Declaration of Independence, Chase was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President George Washington in 1796. A Federalist, Chase irked Thomas Jefferson and his Republican allies in Congress, and was impeached on politically motivated charges of acting in a partisan manner during several trials. However, in 1805 Chase was acquitted by the Senate. He served on the court until his death in 1811.

In 1969, Abe Fortas became the first—and, to date, only—Supreme Court justice to resign under the threat of impeachment. Named to the court by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, Fortas was forced to step down due to financial improprieties that involved him agreeing to act as a paid consultant to the family foundation of a man under investigation for securities fraud.

https://www.history.com/news/has-a-u...been-impeached

In my opinion this is a profound problem with the Constitution. It should be easy to impeach a Supreme, but Congress lacks balls. Impeachments should be decided on by the ultimate authority- the public. And the process should be streamlined to make it quick.

[vettemed]

Originally Posted by Yadkin

That will almost never happen to any judge. In fact, it's only happened once since 1790. And then Senate didn't vote to remove.

A second supreme resigned under threat of impeachment.



https://www.history.com/news/has-a-u...been-impeached

In my opinion this is a profound problem with the Constitution. It should be easy to impeach a Supreme, but Congress lacks balls. Impeachments should be decided on by the ultimate authority- the public. And the process should be streamlined to make it quick.

The public *should* be easily united on the issue of getting rid of a SC justice who clearly doesn't understand or respect part of the constitution. However, the public is too tribal, too political, too divided. Furthermore, those who support this DEI justice also support using government might to take rights away from their political opponents.

[Yadkin]

Originally Posted by vettemed

The public *should* be easily united on the issue of getting rid of a SC justice who clearly doesn't understand or respect part of the constitution. However, the public is too tribal, too political, too divided. Furthermore, those who support this DEI justice also support using government might to take rights away from their political opponents.

I agree, and don't have the answer to alleviate the problem. Maybe we need a Grand Council, like what Italy had in 1943 to take down Mussolini.

[Frankie the Fink]

Remember when this administration wanted to establish the "Disinformation Governance Board" - well they aren't letting up and don't care about the Constitution, just like Biden bypassing the SCOTUS to hand out our money to college no-loads to pay off loans.

[ft laud mike]

well, **** that useless pile of shit

[Steve_R]

Originally Posted by ft laud mike

well, **** that useless pile of shit

I'll pass.

[Raazor]

We'll be complaining about Judge Jumanji for decades

[6spdC6]

Originally Posted by ft laud mike

well, **** that useless pile of shit

Originally Posted by Steve_R

I'll pass.

I would bet that Ted Danson would do that. He had plenty of experience ****ing Woopie!--