YIKES: Did Jasmine Crockett Just Tell Democrats to POUND SAND? Because It Sounds...
Marc Elias Tries (and Fails) to Rewrite Mail-In Ballot Voting History
How Keith Ellison Reacts to Journo Asking Him About Minnesota Fraud PROVES He...
DAAAMN, Son: UK Survivor Helps SHRED Mehdi Hasan in BRUTAL Back and Forth...
Humza Yousaf Wastes NO Time Turning Edinburgh 'Attack' Into 'Muslims Are the Real...
Jessica Tarlov's 'He COULD Be a Weird, Gay Vegan BUT' Save for James...
Police Release Photo of Karmelo Anthony’s Multi-Tool ‘Like With the Little Scissors’
Panefully Stupid: KTVU Reports Car Break-Ins Decline, Glass Repair Shops Hardest Hit
TRAs in Scotland Upset That Men Who Think They're Women Will Be Incarcerated...
Tulsi Gabbard Adds ANOTHER Element to Her Fauci Document Drop (Media Shaming INCOMING)
First Transgender State Legislator Sentenced to 33 Years for Child Porn, Claimed Retardati...
Sen. Chris Murphy Notes That No President Except Trump Has Ever Stolen Air...
After Beheading, Elmo Makes It Clear That He's Rooting for Team USA in...
The Atlantic's Matt Viser Went to Journalism School to Learn New Things, Like...
The Atlantic Looks at Pete Hegseth's Efforts to Diminish the Role of Blacks...

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