On Monday, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was widely ridiculed for her remarks in a case regarding the federal government’s collusion with Big Tech.
As Fox News reports, Jackson’s comments were made during the case Murthy v. Missouri, which alleges that the Biden Administration’s direct coordination with social media platforms to censor certain types of speech was an unconstitutional overreach of power. The White House worked with such companies “under the guise of combating misinformation” to censor stories and discussions that were harmful to Biden’s agenda, including Hunter Biden’s laptop, the origin of the Chinese Coronavirus, and the usefulness of face masks.
In her remarks, Jackson suggested that the Biden Administration was justified in censoring certain speech, and described the First Amendment as “hamstringing” the government’s censorship capabilities.
“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” Jackson said to the lawyer representing Missouri and the other plaintiffs in the case. “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.”
Her comments, particularly the “hamstringing” line as well as the “harmful information” claim, went viral and were widely mocked on social media.
“That’s literally the point of the Bill of Rights,” said California Assemblyman Bill Essayli (R-Calif.). “The government’s powers derive from, and are subservient to, the rights of the People.”
“This is not funny,” podcaster Tim Pool commented bluntly. “This lady is dangerous.”
“WOW. The person who doesn’t know what a woman is, also doesn’t know what the first amendment is,” said the account “Libs of TikTok,” referring to Jackson’s refusal during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings to give a basic definition of the term “woman.” Jackson refused to answer the line of questioning from Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), presumably to avoid angering proponents of the “transgender” agenda, which falsely believes that anyone can change their gender at any given time.
In response, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey defended the First Amendment’s ability to “hamstring” a censorious government.
“It is hamstringing, and it’s supposed to,” Bailey said in an interview. “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.”
Jackson’s apparent lack of knowledge of the law has been frequently criticized, bringing attention to the nature of her appointment to the Supreme Court. Joe Biden promised on the campaign trail in 2020 that if elected, he would appoint the first black woman to the Supreme Court. Thus, Jackson is widely viewed as an affirmative action pick rather than someone who was chosen based on her expertise.