Uh yes! Tyranny *needs* to be hamstrung! That's the whole point! You can't just let propaganda (misinformation) go unchecked! If the "only word" is the government's word then the people are in trouble. Darn right we need to hamstring the government!
The point is that if the government disagrees with people jumping out of windows then the government should exercise their own right to free speech by broadly and publicly explaining why the practice of jumping out of buildings is unhealthy to the practitioners…NOT by censoring the views with which they disagree. The antidote to “bad” speech is better speech. That is the whole idea behind an open forum of freely expressed ideas.
Her new Delta Tau Delta name is Jumanji Jackson, because she hails from some fantasy world. Our SCOTUS has not only crossed the line in their constitutional strictures but they are also weak. Jumangi came up with the most ridiculous sophomoric example to prove her unfounded belief. Really? Teens jumping out of windows is the best this fool could muster?
This is the female who is incapable of defining a woman; should we be surprised she would produce such an idiotic excuse to force censoring free speech by gov't. This is 1 reason why TikTok should be banned, in reality, but that was not who she went after! So far as I have heard, nothing relevant has crossed her lips, since she was put forward as a candidate for her current affirmative action post! She was not even honest about what she wants censored!
As for "hamstringing the gov't" our present useless administration needs to be hamstrung!
Her comments show how so-called progressive ideology (not progress at all) warps minds. The Constitution was written in the negative.
Congress shall make no law - no Senator or Representative shall - not be infringed - shall not be violated - no person shall be held to answer - shall not be required - shall not be construed to deny or disparage - the powers not delegated - shall not be construed - no State shall make or enforce any law - shall not be denied or abridged, etc.
This negative tone is written primarily in the Bill of Rights section or the Amendments. What strikes me is the later Amendments, beginning perhaps with the 15th Amendment, as it began to use fewer and less negative written sentences and more of what the State can do or a positive connotation of wording or meaning. This lives up to the progressive movement gaining influence at the beginning of the 20th or even late 19th.
We see Jackson's comments furthering this trend or at least attempting to broaden the government's power away from the people or the individual states.
== so many—including a Supreme Court Justice—don’t understand WHY we have a First Amendment ==
The "Supreme Court Justice" in question is a person whose entire career has had a "thumb on the scale", which helps explain why she thinks only a biologist knows what a woman is.
As a "person of colour" myself (actually. a disabled veteran of colour - top that, intersectionalists!!) I am viscerally opposed to the notion that whitefolks are obliged to "reach down" and haul us inferior darkies up.
All that's required at this stage, is to permit us spear-chuckers to compete without irrelevant constraints: the "Talented Tenth" will do just fine without the thumb on the scale.
However if you are the sort of Whitey who wants every POC to have an additional burden - i.e., to prove that you COULDA got there on merit - and to have useful Aunt Jemima Jackson-Browns (and Lloyd Austins) as evidence of AA-hires at the very highest levels, then people will see through that in a heartbeat.
No, this is no longer a sound opinion and far from what is currently acceptable fact:
“Jumping out of windows at increasing elevations is understood by all reasonable adults on earth to be an action that will likely result in injury or death to the jumper…” IF that were true, then “allowing any child to take part in medical gender transition is understood by all reasonable adults on earth to be an action that will likely result in to infertility, bodily mutilation, ‘injury or death’ to the child” would Also be true. But look around, it sure wasn’t, and aside from a few countries who very recently came to their senses, still isn’t considered to be self-evident because “science” or what have you.
This was a huge opportunity to blow up Jackson’s stupid argument right in her face with a real-world and real-time analogy she herself condoned when unable to answer the “what is a woman” question. She’s no physicist so what does she know about the ground breaking anyone’s fall?
It's so disturbing you have to cry. It's not just the 1st. The whole Bill of Rights - the 1st 10 amendments - are specifically to hamstring the government. The very name "Bill of Rights" tells you right there! A very interesting detail on the Bill of Rights I read a long time ago. When the constitution was originally debated to get people and original states to vote on it, it had no enumeration of rights, Bill of Rights. The founding fathers either didn't all agree or think they were necessary, didn't think it needed to be said out loud. But the general population was so concerned about another possible royal government developing after they just defeated one, that they demanded some basic rights be enumerated. Most of those rights were already there in various state constitutions. So they cobbled together and whittled down the most relevant ones, and added them to the original constitution to get it agreed upon. It was actually an agreement to prompty follow up with the enumeration of rights in order to get the original constitution approved. That's why they're amendments too, and not part of the main body of the constitution! Nobody ever points that out - they're amendments! But it's what got the constitution finally approved. (I think I have it right? It'd be a good followup article!)
I believe they failed to discuss the issue surrounding disinformation. That has been the problem. The government made false claims (disinformation) and prevented the truth from being seen and heard. We're talking about well respected, well published medical professionals who have seen scientific findings that are inconsistent with the government narrative. That is the issue here. Expanding it to the entire First Amendment issue doesn't speak to what the pandemic issues reflected. We're not talking about drinking bleach for example, although no one censored that. We're not talking about teens jumping out of windows. We're talking about legitimate scientific debate. Why should that be disallowed? Who benefits by that? Only the government, certainly not the public.
She didn't "miss" it; she's a subverting traitor. As are 5 more Injustices.
Uh yes! Tyranny *needs* to be hamstrung! That's the whole point! You can't just let propaganda (misinformation) go unchecked! If the "only word" is the government's word then the people are in trouble. Darn right we need to hamstring the government!
The point is that if the government disagrees with people jumping out of windows then the government should exercise their own right to free speech by broadly and publicly explaining why the practice of jumping out of buildings is unhealthy to the practitioners…NOT by censoring the views with which they disagree. The antidote to “bad” speech is better speech. That is the whole idea behind an open forum of freely expressed ideas.
Her new Delta Tau Delta name is Jumanji Jackson, because she hails from some fantasy world. Our SCOTUS has not only crossed the line in their constitutional strictures but they are also weak. Jumangi came up with the most ridiculous sophomoric example to prove her unfounded belief. Really? Teens jumping out of windows is the best this fool could muster?
This is the female who is incapable of defining a woman; should we be surprised she would produce such an idiotic excuse to force censoring free speech by gov't. This is 1 reason why TikTok should be banned, in reality, but that was not who she went after! So far as I have heard, nothing relevant has crossed her lips, since she was put forward as a candidate for her current affirmative action post! She was not even honest about what she wants censored!
As for "hamstringing the gov't" our present useless administration needs to be hamstrung!
The Supreme Court should be the last place on earth one would find an absolute dumbass, but lo and behold, thar she is.
Her comments show how so-called progressive ideology (not progress at all) warps minds. The Constitution was written in the negative.
Congress shall make no law - no Senator or Representative shall - not be infringed - shall not be violated - no person shall be held to answer - shall not be required - shall not be construed to deny or disparage - the powers not delegated - shall not be construed - no State shall make or enforce any law - shall not be denied or abridged, etc.
This negative tone is written primarily in the Bill of Rights section or the Amendments. What strikes me is the later Amendments, beginning perhaps with the 15th Amendment, as it began to use fewer and less negative written sentences and more of what the State can do or a positive connotation of wording or meaning. This lives up to the progressive movement gaining influence at the beginning of the 20th or even late 19th.
We see Jackson's comments furthering this trend or at least attempting to broaden the government's power away from the people or the individual states.
The 1st Amendment is the cornerstone of the American Constitution. Destroy that, every other amendment collapses.
== so many—including a Supreme Court Justice—don’t understand WHY we have a First Amendment ==
The "Supreme Court Justice" in question is a person whose entire career has had a "thumb on the scale", which helps explain why she thinks only a biologist knows what a woman is.
As a "person of colour" myself (actually. a disabled veteran of colour - top that, intersectionalists!!) I am viscerally opposed to the notion that whitefolks are obliged to "reach down" and haul us inferior darkies up.
All that's required at this stage, is to permit us spear-chuckers to compete without irrelevant constraints: the "Talented Tenth" will do just fine without the thumb on the scale.
However if you are the sort of Whitey who wants every POC to have an additional burden - i.e., to prove that you COULDA got there on merit - and to have useful Aunt Jemima Jackson-Browns (and Lloyd Austins) as evidence of AA-hires at the very highest levels, then people will see through that in a heartbeat.
The alternate reality bubble leftists live in seems to be devoid of good sense and natural intellect.
No, this is no longer a sound opinion and far from what is currently acceptable fact:
“Jumping out of windows at increasing elevations is understood by all reasonable adults on earth to be an action that will likely result in injury or death to the jumper…” IF that were true, then “allowing any child to take part in medical gender transition is understood by all reasonable adults on earth to be an action that will likely result in to infertility, bodily mutilation, ‘injury or death’ to the child” would Also be true. But look around, it sure wasn’t, and aside from a few countries who very recently came to their senses, still isn’t considered to be self-evident because “science” or what have you.
This was a huge opportunity to blow up Jackson’s stupid argument right in her face with a real-world and real-time analogy she herself condoned when unable to answer the “what is a woman” question. She’s no physicist so what does she know about the ground breaking anyone’s fall?
She’s in the process of not knowing up or down, man or woman . What can you expect.
Dimwit
This excellent scientific hypothesis explains how even justices can become exceedingly stupid. https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/the-jerusalem-report-with-ilana-rachel-daniel/the-indoctrinated-brain-with-michael-nehls-md-phd-the-jerusalem-report/
Don’t forget, it was Roberts and Kavanaugh who concocted the scheme to get the Unaffordable Obamanable Care Act through.
It's so disturbing you have to cry. It's not just the 1st. The whole Bill of Rights - the 1st 10 amendments - are specifically to hamstring the government. The very name "Bill of Rights" tells you right there! A very interesting detail on the Bill of Rights I read a long time ago. When the constitution was originally debated to get people and original states to vote on it, it had no enumeration of rights, Bill of Rights. The founding fathers either didn't all agree or think they were necessary, didn't think it needed to be said out loud. But the general population was so concerned about another possible royal government developing after they just defeated one, that they demanded some basic rights be enumerated. Most of those rights were already there in various state constitutions. So they cobbled together and whittled down the most relevant ones, and added them to the original constitution to get it agreed upon. It was actually an agreement to prompty follow up with the enumeration of rights in order to get the original constitution approved. That's why they're amendments too, and not part of the main body of the constitution! Nobody ever points that out - they're amendments! But it's what got the constitution finally approved. (I think I have it right? It'd be a good followup article!)
I believe they failed to discuss the issue surrounding disinformation. That has been the problem. The government made false claims (disinformation) and prevented the truth from being seen and heard. We're talking about well respected, well published medical professionals who have seen scientific findings that are inconsistent with the government narrative. That is the issue here. Expanding it to the entire First Amendment issue doesn't speak to what the pandemic issues reflected. We're not talking about drinking bleach for example, although no one censored that. We're not talking about teens jumping out of windows. We're talking about legitimate scientific debate. Why should that be disallowed? Who benefits by that? Only the government, certainly not the public.