Liberal Supreme Court Justice Jackson Warns First Amendment Is ‘Hamstringing’ Government

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has provoked a backlash after she warned that constitutionally protected free speech is “hamstringing” the government.

Jackson, who was nominated to the high court by Democrat President Joe Biden, made the comments when the SCOTUS heard arguments for Murthy v. Missouri.

The case challenges the Biden administration’s alleged coordination with Big Tech to censor conservative talking points that were unfavorable to the Democrats.

It stemmed from a lawsuit brought by the Republican-led states of Missouri and Louisiana.

The lawsuit accused high-ranking federal government officials of working with social media companies “under the guise of combating misinformation.”

This collusion ultimately led to censoring speech on topics that included Hunter Biden’s laptop, COVID-19 origins, and the efficacy of face masks.

The states argue that this censorship of wrongthink was a First Amendment violation.

However, as the justices questioned whether the Biden admin crossed the constitutional line, Jackson appeared to suggest that such actions could be justified.

“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” she told the lawyer representing Louisiana, Missouri, and private plaintiffs.

Jackson continued:

“And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.

“So can you help me?” Jackson added.

“Because I’m really – I’m really worried about that because you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective, and you’re saying that the government can’t interact with the source of those problems.”

Slay the latest News for free!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Her comments quickly went viral.

X was flooded with posts from people insisting that “hamstringing the federal government” is “literally the point” of the First Amendment.

“Fox and Friends Weekends” co-host Will Cain responded:

“Hamstringing the government is THE POINT of the First Amendment!”

“That’s literally the point of the Bill of Rights,” California state Rep. Bill Essayli echoed.

“The government’s powers derive from, and are subservient to, the rights of the People.”

“I would be more concerned if the First Amendment did not hamstring the government in significant ways,” news outlet Reason’s senior editor Robby Soave said.

“This is not funny,” podcaster Tim Pool wrote.

“This lady is dangerous.”

OutKick writer Ian Miller wrote:

“Always encouraging to see Supreme Court justices show this little understanding of the foundational principles of the United States.”

“WOW,” popular account Libs of TikTok posted.

“The person who doesn’t know what a woman is, also doesn’t know what the first amendment is.”

Comedian Tim Young similarly responded:

“The same justice who doesn’t know what a woman is…doesn’t understand what the First Amendment was written for…

“Does this come as a shock to anyone?”

“‘I’m concerned that the Constitution is limiting the power of the government’ is a completely insane thing for somebody to say who sits on the highest court in the land,” the State Freedom Caucus Network’s Greg Price said.

Babylon Bee managing editor Joel Berry tweeted:

“Listen to this. The full soundbite is even worse than the quote.

“We have a Supreme Court Justice who doesn’t believe in the First Amendment. Insane.”

“I couldn’t believe what I was hearing,” Substack columnist and “Twitter Files” reporter Michael Shellenberger commented.

“She sounded like a sophomore at Brown.”

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey issued a statement declaring that Jackson was “absolutely right” about the First Amendment restricting the government.

“It is hamstringing, and it’s supposed to,” Bailey said.

“The whole purpose of the Constitution is to protect us from the government, and the government exists to protect our rights.

“But here, the federal government is ignoring our First Amendment protections and weaponizing the federal government to silence our voices.”

“And she’s right. It limits what the federal government can and can’t do,” he added.

“And that’s a good thing.”

The Supreme Court will also decide whether a temporary injunction preventing White House and executive agency officials from meeting with tech companies about moderating content can remain in place as the case is being litigated.

READ MORE – Federal Bureaucrats Censored Public Concerns over Mail-In Ballots during 2020 Election, Docs Show

Advertise with Slay News
join telegram


Who is the best president?

By completing this poll, you gain access to our free newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.

By Frank Bergman

Frank Bergman is a political/economic journalist living on the east coast. Aside from news reporting, Bergman also conducts interviews with researchers and material experts and investigates influential individuals and organizations in the sociopolitical world.

Notify of
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x