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.
Right on the mark! Did I misinterpret the author's example or was he advocating for free speech, unless the speech is advocating for kids jumping out of windows? Huh? Apparently he is one of the adherents to "the Amendments are limited" camp and is unable to see how the censorship of his cherished interview with Dr. McCullough is a logical outgrowth of his acceptance of limitations to the First Amendment. The author may want to begin an examination of how readily people, including himself, surrender their autonomy to the State so that they can sink into the deadly illusion that the State will protect us and has our best interests at the root of all of its decisions. If you are unwilling to cultivate and utilize your own powers of discernment, there is little that can be done to prevent you from remaining a victim.
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?
Truly, it was pathetic. I could not believe the others sat there and listened to her perverse attacks and constant interruption of an attorney trying to get out a first sentence in answer to her nonstop badgering questions.
How disgusting this is our highest and best judicial authority. If the Constitution were taught in schools—-rather than propoganda—I bet most Hugh schoolers would be able to tap dance around her.
She’s just trying to cover up her insecurities and “look” like the authority finger this position requires. Unfortunately with most adults not understanding how our government is supposed to work, and begging for some kind of King instead of a power limited president, we are doomed.
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!
Yes couldn’t define a woman because she’s not a biologist. Is SHE the one who idiotically said that? I would suggest that it follows that she is not only not a biologist, but also not a judge or even an American based on what she’s said. Embarrassing is what she is.
Chromosomes still exist and are essential to your existence and mine, and every other living creature. What a woman is is either in your DNA, or it is not; "feelings" are immaterial, as they are transient. "Nuances" as to expressions of womanhood may vary, but not the basic fact of XX chromosomes in the DNA! Nor do those with XY chromosomes cease being male when medicated and mutilated to appear as women; their brains, hearts, lungs, musculoskeletal structure, and other structures still say MALE!
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 13th and subsequent amendments began being written in the few yrs between 1865 and1871, at which time our gov't voted itself a private corporation, so their control began then, would be my guess.
14 February 1871 is when it happened; the yrs following the 1861-1865 war were frought with much of the same psychosis prevailing today, and amendments to our constitution led up to that vote, both in how they were written and in what they accomplished. That persisted to the final complete severance in 1913 under socialist Woodrow Wilson with the 16th and17th Amendments. That paved the way for FDR's socialist explosion, to which his protègé, LBJ, added greatly, in the '60s. So, no, nothing is as we were told in school!
The 2nd Amendment is there to protect the 1st and all the others “… being necessary to the security of a free state …” the 2nd Amendment, like the 1st, is the “right of the people.” Do not expect the federal government to secure a free state. A government defined as “we the people” that does not trust its people to keep and bear arms is a sham government that must not be trusted.
== 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?
Great point. Plaintiff attorneys need to up their game. They won’t get Jackson’s vote no matter what, so there’s no harm in showing everyone else what a blithering idiot she is.
Touche. Why couldn’t the attorney have replied with that example of mutilation? Was he afraid to be attacked? Because it’s the same government who is promoting such mutulation (just not by jumping off buildings).
EVEN IN THIS HEARING they proclaimed multiple times SAVING LIVES WITH GENETIC JABS …though instead they’ve maimed and killed thousands with them.
Oh, and multiple mentions of a “once in a lifetime pandemic’. But wait!! The WHO and Gates are certain there are many plandemics waiting to pounce on the world every day. Sadly they should know.
Every school across America should be spending this ENTIRE week on the topic of the First Amendment, required to listen to the House Subcommittee Hearing on Censorship. And all the Oral Arguments at each hearing from the first through all the appeals.
I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW OF ANY PARENTS WHOSE CHILDREN’S TEACHERS COVERED THIS IN SCHOOL.
Yes and I’m pretty sure that some of Kavanaugh’s practices when he worked in the press office produced ethical challenges for journalists. Someone should look up books about ethical journalism… reporters are supposed to draw a line but they probably do that less for corporate sponsors. Same veiled threat/improper influence if it’s the government. Kavanaugh normalized corruption with that example. When I have called the reporter to say that an article was biased or misleading, they just give me the chance to write a letter to the editor… they don’t drop the original story! If there is something factually wrong, they issue a very concise retraction and substitute the correct facts in subsequent versions. So what happened we other covid and the dirty dozen was not at all like that – – it was a prior restraint on all the truth tellers. I think that the attorney generals were not sufficiently familiar with journalistic practices unlike Alex Berenson and Matt Taibbi.
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.
No this case is about free speech, not about the technicalities of medical research. Should those who challenge the govt narrative on mRNA-vax harm be censored if it turned out these injections were beneficial? Of course not. It’s up to your colleagues to correct such mistakes, if any, not up to the Supreme Court. And btw no one ever recommended drinking bleach — that false assertion was an intentional smear by malicious journalists. It’s well- known that H2O2 has an anti-bacterial effect, and it was simply thinking out loud to wonder if there might be some way to use that property internally. It was never an actual recommendation, as anyone can discover by reviewing the press conference in which those remarks were made.
She didn't "miss" it; she's a subverting traitor. As are 5 more Injustices.
Correct. She’s been in enough law school to understand the basics of the constitution like my middle school daughter. She’s pandering to her base.
Some minds are incompetent.
"Incompetence" is the standard defense for perfidy, is it not?
The rungs to the top on the ladder are few.
The throats she must slice are many.
Remember, this is the person who couldn't say what a woman is, no surprise here.
Well, of course they are, they're Democrats!
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.
Right on the mark! Did I misinterpret the author's example or was he advocating for free speech, unless the speech is advocating for kids jumping out of windows? Huh? Apparently he is one of the adherents to "the Amendments are limited" camp and is unable to see how the censorship of his cherished interview with Dr. McCullough is a logical outgrowth of his acceptance of limitations to the First Amendment. The author may want to begin an examination of how readily people, including himself, surrender their autonomy to the State so that they can sink into the deadly illusion that the State will protect us and has our best interests at the root of all of its decisions. If you are unwilling to cultivate and utilize your own powers of discernment, there is little that can be done to prevent you from remaining a victim.
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?
Truly, it was pathetic. I could not believe the others sat there and listened to her perverse attacks and constant interruption of an attorney trying to get out a first sentence in answer to her nonstop badgering questions.
How disgusting this is our highest and best judicial authority. If the Constitution were taught in schools—-rather than propoganda—I bet most Hugh schoolers would be able to tap dance around her.
She’s just trying to cover up her insecurities and “look” like the authority finger this position requires. Unfortunately with most adults not understanding how our government is supposed to work, and begging for some kind of King instead of a power limited president, we are doomed.
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!
Yes couldn’t define a woman because she’s not a biologist. Is SHE the one who idiotically said that? I would suggest that it follows that she is not only not a biologist, but also not a judge or even an American based on what she’s said. Embarrassing is what she is.
Yes, that was her excuse. Of course anyone who passed basic biology in HS should be able to define what a woman is; no degree required!
What; chromosomes exist? Didn't they go the way of viruses? Nuances as to what a woman is have little to do with biology.
Chromosomes still exist and are essential to your existence and mine, and every other living creature. What a woman is is either in your DNA, or it is not; "feelings" are immaterial, as they are transient. "Nuances" as to expressions of womanhood may vary, but not the basic fact of XX chromosomes in the DNA! Nor do those with XY chromosomes cease being male when medicated and mutilated to appear as women; their brains, hearts, lungs, musculoskeletal structure, and other structures still say MALE!
"Man" and "woman" have various nonbiological semantic connotations. However, most animals are male if they have a Y chromosome, and female if not.
No, they don't. The same chromosomal division applies to humans, like it or not! Anything else is just lies.
She's clearly not a real woman. (This is not a biological statement.)
😂 She won’t know the difference.
The Supreme Court should be the last place on earth one would find an absolute dumbass, but lo and behold, thar she is.
We could offer AOC her job! Equally knowledgeable, like for RICO laws!
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 13th and subsequent amendments began being written in the few yrs between 1865 and1871, at which time our gov't voted itself a private corporation, so their control began then, would be my guess.
Someone in a post recently said this about the US being a private corporation. I don’t understand where /how that came about.
It has been one insane discovery journey the last 4 now going on 5 years. NOTHING is as it seemed.
14 February 1871 is when it happened; the yrs following the 1861-1865 war were frought with much of the same psychosis prevailing today, and amendments to our constitution led up to that vote, both in how they were written and in what they accomplished. That persisted to the final complete severance in 1913 under socialist Woodrow Wilson with the 16th and17th Amendments. That paved the way for FDR's socialist explosion, to which his protègé, LBJ, added greatly, in the '60s. So, no, nothing is as we were told in school!
Please explain more! the vote on 2/13/1871 was for what bill? What did it say?
Look it up; like I used to explain to my corpsmen, I'm not an encyclopedia. But get the date right, it was Valentine's day, the 14th...
SLS, you must be an attorney from armed forces?! Love the knowledge you have shared.
The 1st Amendment is the cornerstone of the American Constitution. Destroy that, every other amendment collapses.
The 2nd Amendment is there to protect the 1st and all the others “… being necessary to the security of a free state …” the 2nd Amendment, like the 1st, is the “right of the people.” Do not expect the federal government to secure a free state. A government defined as “we the people” that does not trust its people to keep and bear arms is a sham government that must not be trusted.
== 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.
Brilliant comment. It had me snorting my 2nd mug of tea up my nose with laughter.
You reminded me of a bloke I met in Detroit about 40 years ago & for some reason your style of ascerbic wit took me right back there. Happy days.
Thank you, Sir.
Semper Fidelis.
Oorah!
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?
Great point. Plaintiff attorneys need to up their game. They won’t get Jackson’s vote no matter what, so there’s no harm in showing everyone else what a blithering idiot she is.
Touche. Why couldn’t the attorney have replied with that example of mutilation? Was he afraid to be attacked? Because it’s the same government who is promoting such mutulation (just not by jumping off buildings).
EVEN IN THIS HEARING they proclaimed multiple times SAVING LIVES WITH GENETIC JABS …though instead they’ve maimed and killed thousands with them.
Oh, and multiple mentions of a “once in a lifetime pandemic’. But wait!! The WHO and Gates are certain there are many plandemics waiting to pounce on the world every day. Sadly they should know.
Every school across America should be spending this ENTIRE week on the topic of the First Amendment, required to listen to the House Subcommittee Hearing on Censorship. And all the Oral Arguments at each hearing from the first through all the appeals.
I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW OF ANY PARENTS WHOSE CHILDREN’S TEACHERS COVERED THIS IN SCHOOL.
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/
that was interesting!
Don’t forget, it was Roberts and Kavanaugh who concocted the scheme to get the Unaffordable Obamanable Care Act through.
Yes and I’m pretty sure that some of Kavanaugh’s practices when he worked in the press office produced ethical challenges for journalists. Someone should look up books about ethical journalism… reporters are supposed to draw a line but they probably do that less for corporate sponsors. Same veiled threat/improper influence if it’s the government. Kavanaugh normalized corruption with that example. When I have called the reporter to say that an article was biased or misleading, they just give me the chance to write a letter to the editor… they don’t drop the original story! If there is something factually wrong, they issue a very concise retraction and substitute the correct facts in subsequent versions. So what happened we other covid and the dirty dozen was not at all like that – – it was a prior restraint on all the truth tellers. I think that the attorney generals were not sufficiently familiar with journalistic practices unlike Alex Berenson and Matt Taibbi.
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!)
Well stated, Mike A.
Thank you.
Yes, you DO have it right.
too bad the plaintiff's attorney could not have pointed that out.
The WHOLE damn Bill of Rights is to limit Government, not just the 1st!
Excellent.
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.
No this case is about free speech, not about the technicalities of medical research. Should those who challenge the govt narrative on mRNA-vax harm be censored if it turned out these injections were beneficial? Of course not. It’s up to your colleagues to correct such mistakes, if any, not up to the Supreme Court. And btw no one ever recommended drinking bleach — that false assertion was an intentional smear by malicious journalists. It’s well- known that H2O2 has an anti-bacterial effect, and it was simply thinking out loud to wonder if there might be some way to use that property internally. It was never an actual recommendation, as anyone can discover by reviewing the press conference in which those remarks were made.