BREAKING: Christa Pike Reportedly SURVIVES Two Attempts at Execution (VIDEO)
Again? Clown in Joker Makeup Urges Liberals to Stand Up by Doing Absolutely...
Socialism Offers 'Liberation,' but It's Really About Control
Feds Probe Adam Kinzinger for Placing Bets on His Own Pardon
Sec. Markwayne Mullin Says HSI Has 300,000 More Voter Fraud Cases It's Getting...
Gov. Gavin Newsom Signs Bills Restricting ICE’s Use of Flash Bangs, Shock Gloves,...
Scott Jennings Notes Interesting Timing of Mayor Mamdani Releasing His Anti-Antisemitism V...
A Bad Night Is Not Automatically a Crime — and Pretending It Is...
Sen. Jim Justice Walks Back (Sort of) Comments Going Soft on Immigration Enforcement
Sen. Chris Van Hollen Says Act to Ban Stock Trading Would 'Disenfranchise American...
Sean Davis Puts the Final Mushroom Cloud Over NYTimes' 'We Don't Publish Unverified...
Sen. Alex Padilla Calls Out Markwayne Mullin's 'Election Conspiracy Claims About Noncitize...
Senate Dems Block Legislation to Ban Insider Trading, Citing Attached ‘Voter Suppression’...
These Christians Risk Everything to Follow Jesus
Better Off Head? Actor John Cusack’s New High Brows Raise Low-Brow Laughs Online

Ketanji Brown Jackson assuages skeptics' concerns with reminder that 'free speech is supposed to be allowed to happen' [video]

If you’re just joining us, it’s Day 3 of the Senate confirmation hearings for Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Jackson Brown. She’s fielded a lot of questions so far, but, to be fair, not every single question has been super relevant to the situation. Some issues won’t really factor into things if she gets a seat on the Supreme Court.

Advertisement

But when it comes to stuff like, say, the First Amendment and freedom of speech … well, those seem like topics that you’d definitely want to be brought up during a confirmation hearing for a potential Supreme Court Justice.

And those topics did come up. Unfortunately, Ketanji Brown Jackson’s take on them doesn’t really inspire a whole lot of confidence in her ability to apply the Constitution in interpreting the law:

Her words:

“If there is speech that is an incitement to violence, that’s one circumstance in which the government might be able to prevent it. But, other than that, short of that, um, free speech is supposed to be allowed to happen.”

We get where she’s coming from when it comes to incitement to violence (assuming that she’s talking about actual incitement to violence as opposed to, say, pointing out that a biological male is not a woman. But what’s this “free speech is supposed to be allowed to happen” business? Let’s take another look at the First Amendment, in case we just missed that part somehow:

Advertisement

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.

Hmmm. “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech.” Seems pretty cut and dried. Nothing about how Congress is not supposed to make any law abridging the freedom of speech.

Yeah, seems like we’re pretty much at that point.

***

Related:

Ketanji Brown Jackson unable to define ‘woman’ because she’s not a biologist (maybe Biden could help)

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement