Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
The U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appears confused yet once again, or better yet, transparently demonstrating her partisan “carrying the water” for the Biden administration’s attempt to dismantle 1st Amendment rights.
On Monday during Oral Arguments of one of the most important cases addressing 1st Amendment rights in U.S. history, Jackson demonstrated her near acceptance of the U.S. Federal Government’s - namely, the Biden Administration’s - collusion and coercion with BIG TECH for censoring Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic.
That Biden - BIG TECH - PHARMA campaign was mired in lies and distortions to justify their actions by suppressing truth and facts across the board from the COVID origin to the continued lies of not officially recognizing vascular and neurological COVID-19 shot injuries to date, sanctioning doctors, intimidating employees.
It was and still is one of the gravest injustices across the globe.
America's 1st Amendment rights under the US Constitution protects five pillars. It is the First Amendment in the US Bill of Rights under the US Constitution. It has been argued since its inception how important those rights are in Federalist Papers and court cases, egislatively and legally. The very essence of all men treated equally goes back to the Magna Carter in the 1200s.
The 1st Amendment is the bedrock by which all rights flow thereafter in this country. There are five pillars of the First Amendment - Freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
Constraining the Federal Government from censoring Americans is exactly one of the key points and rudimentary platforms for the creation of the 1st Amendment.
There is nothing more important other than Federal v. States rights’ lines of demarcation, and the balance of power and checks and balances of the three legislative branches of executive, judicial and legislative in the basic understanding of civics.
During Monday’s oral arguments for Murthy v. Missouri, formerly known as Biden v. Missouri, Jackson claimed to oppose any ruling in favor of Americans’ constitutional right to free speech if it limited the government’s ability to censor that speech via BIG TECH.
In other words, she is in for our First Amendment rights as long as it does not limit the federal government’s ability to actually censor our speech, and you can bet that is not limited only via BIG TECH.
“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” Jackson told Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, who was arguing for preserving 1st Amendment rights.
"Important time periods," states Jackson. That certainly needs to be defined in reality and not Jackson's. The US government lied to the American people by acts of omission and commission.
“You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information,” Jackson stated further. “So can you help me? Because 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.”
Another lame statement by Jackson. It is obviously her thinking the Biden administration acted in "good faith." That is hardly a reality. The justice is not dealing in reality.
Aguiñaga clarified that he wasn’t arguing for a complete ban on all interaction between the government and social media companies, but for that relationship to stay within constitutional bounds.
“Our position is not that the government can interact with the platforms there. They can and they should in certain circumstances like that, that present such dangerous issues for society and especially young people,” Aguiñaga stated.
“But the way they do that has to be in compliance with the First Amendment. And I think that means they can give them all the true information that the platform needs and ask to amplify that.”
There is a plethora of irrefutable evidence that federal agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Census Bureau, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, FBI, Department of Justice, and the White House demanded Big Tech companies like Twitter (now X), Facebook, and YouTube silence Americans with government-disfavored opinions on Covid-19, elections, and the Biden regime.
Judge Terry Doughty, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, called such government-directed internet censorship “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history” in his 155 page ruling issued on July 4 last year.
Makes one wonder if Judge Jackson read Judge Doughty's ruling and comprehended the words - "the most massive attack against free speech in United States' history," doesn't it?
In a different exchange, Jackson stated that a “once-in-a-lifetime pandemic” or any other such declarations of emergency should allow government to escape its constitutional limits. Declarations of emergency are historically common as a means of government power grabs.
“I’m interested in your view that the context doesn’t change the First Amendment principles,” Jackson said. “I understood our First Amendment jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government restrictions of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you’re talking about a compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example, that the public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic.”
That above question would make sense if Judge Jackson demonstrated that she understood the definition of "accurate information," when the court has earlier ruled that the censorship during the pandemic was a "massive "attack against free speech," and the evidence concludes the government's overreach was based upon lies.
BIG TECH is not the only tool in the box of creativity when fascists want to limit free speech.
Don’t forget what World Economic Forum and Davos Global leader graduate Canadian Justin Trudeau did to the truckers in Canada in February 2020. Trudeau and his merry band of fascists globalists locked down bank accounts.
People lost jobs because they did not want the government forcing them to take the medical experimental COVID-19 jabs because of religious and medical reasons.
Before Trudeau froze the bank accounts,, United Airlines mandated Covid-19 shots for their US-based United employees. Note - not for passengers and not for foreign-based United employees. That is one for a Wharton, Harvard, Georgetown, Columbia Business class case study.
Some United Airlines employees applied for religious and medical exemptions.
Some United Airlines employees were granted religious exemptions in fall 2021, and then those granted religious exemptions were put on “indefinite unpaid leave” all orchestrated by the likes of United’s CEO Scott Kirby and United’s president, who took former President Obama’s Critical Race Theory seminar at the University of Chicago in the 1990s.
The unions went along with it. Their board of directors were complicit in those decisions either by acts of commission or omission during a global pandemic while United received government contracts, and Kirby and his wife were invited to a White House State Dinner and he was appointed to a Homeland Security board.
Doctors, nurses and hospital employees went public about early treatment and the horrors happening in the hospitals with ventilators, and do not resuscitate orders never given to the doctors that resulted in patients' deaths.
COVID-19 vax-injured went public with their multiple injuries from cardio to vascular to neurological injuries. To date, the CDC, NIH, NIAD, FDA and HHS have never officially acknowledged the vascular and neurological injuries even though the NIH was drawing blood from covid-vax injured as early as January 2021.
For Justice Jackson now to think that the government has the right to lie to the public when there is a plethora of evidence to prove that the federal government lied and Joe Biden pimped for PHARMA and lied to the American people during the COVID disaster in cahoots with BIG TECH which were advertising partners with PHARMA may make her the dumbest person on the US Supreme Court.
But, then again, the public was forewarned.
It was not so long ago in March 2022 that Tennessee’s Senator Marsha Blackburn (R) asked U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to define the word “woman,” and Jackson responded, “Can I provide a definition? No. I can’t,” said Jackson.
You can’t?” Blackburn asked. “So you believe the meaning of the word ‘woman’ is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?”
Jackson told the senator she was not a biologist, and that as a judge her role was to “address disputes.”
If there is a dispute over a definition, she pointed out, “people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide.”
It may be time for Judge Jackson to comprehend the facts and the law and realize - there is no body of common law - none - zip - that justifies that the federal government has the right to censor anything when the government lies.
If that is where we are - Justice Jackson is not only on the wrong side of the law. She is on the wrong side of morality in the law.
She is on the wrong bench and does not belong on a judicial bench whatsoever because she is as out of touch with reality this week as she was during her Senate confirmation hearing.
You can dispute arguments, but ignoring the facts and the underlying importance of a federal government in collusion practicing coercion in conjunction with BIG TECH for PHARMA political power and political donations is brazen and bold corruption and the American people are not stupid.
