Supreme Court Judge Jackson Says the “Quiet Part” Out Loud

March 20, 2024 in News by RBN Staff

source:  gatewaypundit


The first day (perhaps the only day) of the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) oral arguments on Murthy v. Biden took place on March 18, 2024.  This was an opportunity to seek Supreme Court resolution on the matter of U.S. Government personnel in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the Surgeon General, and others coercing social media to throttle, silence, and censor American Citizens.

The predominant post-hearing headlines from much of legacy media presupposed a SCOTUS opinion.  Headlines included SCOTUS “likely to reject”, Missouri and Louisiana case “appears doomed”, SCOTUS Justices liberal and conservative alike appeared “skeptical” of the assertions.

I listened to significant segments of the hearing.  The ability of the legacy outlets to confidently see and predict the future outcome of this case was a bit over the top.  There was some skepticism from the Justices, but there was also concern in the Justice’s questions.

The Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft is a co-plaintiff in the case along with the state of Missouri, the state of LouisianaDr. Jay BhattacharyaDr. Martin KulldorffAaron Kheriaty, and Jill Hines

Meeting with the media was not an issue, the issue was “coercion”.  I’ve been at the White House and been in these situations.  The mere fact of meeting with someone at the White House is a message.

The Government person, political, uniformed, or career is presumed to be representing the full force and weight of the U.S. Government which implies possible investigation and prosecution for not cooperating.  This should not be dismissed or underrated.

I’ve seen senior members of private entities vehemently disagree with the senior Government official in White House Situation Room meetings and seen Government members imply the carrot and stick approach to meeting attendees.

Carrot and stick meant good and bad outcomes for cooperating or not cooperating.  The government tone and demeanor can easily go over the guardrails into the coercion category, but if no one complains, why not push the envelope?

The First Amendment hampers the Government?

Justice Ketanji Jackson Brown received the accolade for the most memorable comment of the hearing.  She seemed concerned that the First Amendment was “Hamstringing” the Federal ability to control social media.

Out of the mouth comes what is in the heart.  Justice Brown complaining about a core Constitutional right of an American Citizen is unsettling.  These rights are implicit in the Constitution, enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The comments from Justice Brown are disturbing, yet, self-admittedly she is also not a biologist and unqualified to determine whether there is such a thing as two genders.

This is what happens with ideology conditioning in society and academia, common sense and respect for Constitutional principles are thrown out the window (PS, I thought “Hamstringing” was a term that privileged people of the past used, I didn’t know it was appropriate for 2024).

A key tenet of the First Amendment is protecting Citizens from the Government, so yes, “hamstringing” government is a good thing.  The instinctive reflex of Justice Brown to protect the Government and not protect the Citizen is a flag on flawed ideology, legal logic, and outlook on life.

I have no problem with Government officials meeting with social media – we did it many times – but they can’t be looked at as enemies, partners, or subordinates.  There is nothing wrong with Government explaining their policy to groups in a meeting.

Coercion is different, and wrong.  Countering Justice Jackson, Justice Alito likely had the best expression of the hearing, “It’s got these big clubs available to it,” Justice Samuel Alito said of the government. “It’s treating Facebook and these other platforms like they’re subordinates.

Would you do that to the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or the Associated Press?”  The answer from my experience, the Government wouldn’t have to treat the NYT and the AP like this.  Big Government was often in alliance with the NYT and AP.

Boeing and airline aircraft maintenance as a case study of what happens to institutional culture with DEI

It pains me to see Boeing going through what it is going through.  My Dad did an entire career at Boeing after getting out of the Air Force.  I worked at Boeing very briefly before I went into the Army.  I have a special place in my heart for Boeing.

Something is wrong at Boeing and the airline maintenance program.  Recently, Pilot and Lawyer Arthur Rosenberg went over the different issues, some were Boeing’s fault, some were airline maintenance issues.

But on either side, the issues went back to a significant loss of discipline and oversight with engineering, quality control, and process.  All of these are hard technical skills that used to be valued and prized to ensure American products and services in aerospace were the world’s best.

But with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion – science, math, industrial arts have now been declared vestiges of privilege.  Math is too hard, instead, give an A for effort even if the number is wrong.

A rivet has to be properly fastened in every pre-drilled hole?  That reeks of paternalism – obviously engineering, math, science, and flight safety discriminate against the less privileged.

What happens with the feel-good mentality of DEI, CRT, grievance, and narcissism is that the laws of physics, math, science, and safety are rejected, and our airliners return to base looking like they spent 30 seconds over Berlin or Tokyo in the Second World War.

This utopian psychotic mentality and communist inspired cancer seeps into all branches of higher learning and soon even common sense is dismissed and a Supreme Court nominee has to recuse herself from saying whether there is a man and woman.

This is how a Harvard President receives her position despite extensive concerns over her plagiarizing.  And this is how Supreme Court Justices dispense with unalterable truths of our Constitution.

A total purge of Woke-ism and Government Coercion is needed

Justice Brown is a role model for how things have veered from sanity to Woke-ism.  There is nothing immediately wrong with Government officials meeting with social media, but this should be closely monitored and transparent.

There is also something called the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that gives clear guidance on rules for groups that meet regularly with Government and how Government is to conduct itself in meeting regularly with groups and individuals.

In the early 2000s we created the Enduring Security Framework to meet on cybersecurity matters (but we did use a legal carve out to exempt the ESF from FACA).

The U.S. Government was not just meeting with groups and individuals – they were coercing them to take actions against American Citizens.  These citizens often lost livelihoods, employability, and significant financial opportunities and were unlawfully surveilled.

They were harmed and remedy is due them from Big Government and Big Tech.  The American public has the right to see the FACA package for these regular meetings and all details so there can be a full accounting for the unlawful behavior of Government Officials and Big Tech representatives who were far more concerned with hamstringing the American Citizen instead of the other way around.