DHS Announces That 19-Year-Old High School Serial Groper Has Been Deported
Yesterday’s Call, Tomorrow’s Anniversary
'A Gentle and Generous Soul': X Pays Tribute to Andrew Wimsatt
Bill Kristol: We Should Be Appalled Trump Is Trying to Impose the Anti-American...
Libs of TikTok Exposes Universities Celebrating the First ‘Kirkaversary’
Psaki Panics Over Fetterman Switch Talk — Maybe Democrats Should Have Behaved Better
Lindsay Clancy Juror Said It Was 'Disgusting' That Lone Holdout Re-Enacted Stranglings
Abdul El-Sayed Called American Prisons Racist and a Weapon. Michigan May Make Him...
Hillary Clinton Suggests Netanyahu Allowed October 7 to Happen So He Could ‘Come...
James Talarico Tells NBC News He ‘Missed the Mark’ When Speaking About Dismantling...
Janice Dean Self-Awareness Nukes Hillary Clinton and What Made Her Furious About the...
FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson WRECKS the Washington Post for Blatant Hit Job on...
Trump Ignites GOP Fire In Texas, Democrats About To Find Out
Nick Shirley Spotlights the Record Gavin Newsom Has to Overcome As His Presidential...
Dancing on Charlie Kirk’s Grave: Hanania’s Anniversary Hit Job and Ahmari’s Endorsement Sp...

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