Here's Further Proof That 'Jingle Bells' Is Racist
Sen. Patty Murray Wants Immediate Release of 'Constituent' Mauled by DHS K9
Illegal Who Entered 7 Times and Sexually Assaulted Woman Praised by Judge for...
ABC News: Sen. Mark Warner Says Type of Ammo Used in Drug Boat...
All Black Coaches Will Pay: Jemele Hill Predictably Drops a Race Card on...
MS NOW's Senior Legal Reporter Goes All-In With Narrative of Trump With Minors...
White Guilt Over Accountability: Minneapolis Shrugs at $250M Stolen from Hungry Kids
Questions Surround Mass Shooting at Brown University; Several Reported Injured
Jasmine Crockett Claims She Gets the Struggles of Farmers and Ranchers, Knows the...
Rep. Bennie Thompson Asks Where in the US Is Antifa
Scott Jennings: Suing Dems Will Need SWAT Teams and Kentucky Colonels to Stop...
USA! Trump Takes the Field at Army-Navy Game As the Crowd Goes Wild...
Sen. Amy Klobuchar Honors 1980 Olympic Men's Hockey Team With Photo of Stanley...
Dems Will Award Reuters Major Loyalty Points for Pushing Their Redacted Trump Pic...
Freed Illegal Alien Kilmar Abrego Garcia Sounds Like He’s Giving Democrat Party Campaign...

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