"She’ll probably get better at her judging craft..." isn't going to happen. She was nominated and confirmed for exactly the same reason as Laughing Girl at the Naval Observatory based upon color and competency is optional. These two are examples of DIE, as Kurt Schlichter calls it, run amok.
Another aphorism is that language can express thought, conceal thought, or take the place of thought. I wouldn’t be so charitable as to assume that her muddled words do not reflect muddled thinking. Is she artless, or is she witless?
The piece in Reason is a bit misguided. I'll note that the author is not a lawyer and has no legal knowledge (from what I can discern in her bio - her majors were Philosophy and English Lit).
The FIRE in a crowded theater example was suggested by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. It's certainly true that the case had nothing to do with fire or theaters (and so the remarks were "dicta"), but he was making the general point that there are limits to free speech -- a point that hardly any Constitutional scholars contest. The only contest is over where to draw the line.
I can virtually guarantee that if a person falsely shouted FIRE in a crowded theater, and the result was people being trampled to reach the door, the person would be arrested and convicted, and the conviction would be upheld 9-0 by the Supreme Court.
"The classic example is that a person does not have the right to shout ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theater." Dershowitz also takes issue with Holmes' example. He says it's not an example of free speech, but of shouting an alarm, the same as setting off an alarm. Of course, setting off an alarm bell is not free speech. https://jweekly.com/2004/09/10/dershowitz-shouts-reason-not-fire/
I have a great deal of respect for Dersh, (and I encourage readers to follow his podcasts on Substack) but I think he's being a little dodgy here.
To say that loudly speaking the word FIRE is not really speaking at all, is just fiction. It may amount to MORE than speech, but whatever it is, it certainly INCLUDES speech.
If Judge Jackson says it takes a biologist to determine a person's sex, at least it's an admission that sex is biological.
Of course she knew what a woman is. The fact that she refused to answer that question demonstrated why she is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court: She will reflexively acquiesce to the mob on anything controversial. This is contrary to the whole point for the existence of the Supreme Court, as a backstop to the excesses of democracy.
There was little risk in answering that question honestly. Yes, it would have annoyed the woke left. But it would have deprived the Republicans of a wedge issue on her, and it's not like the Senate Democrats would have voted her down over this. Instead she chickened out in the face of the woke mob. THIS is what should have disqualifed her from the SCOTUS.
Why Glenn, whatevah do you mean... Our great first female black something of a justice who cannot define a woman just told you she understands government censorship of the 1st Amendment. Or something...
The low information Justice’s “the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways …” utterly fails to acknowledge that this hamstringing is the glorious feature of the Amendment, not a bug.
It’s much like a pesky notion (perhaps to some low information Justices) that the Third Amendment “hamstrings” the Army from turning your home into a free-for-all commando bed and breakfast.
Or perhaps another pesky notion that the 8th Amendment hamstrings the federal government from imposing criminal punishments utilizing such medieval methods like Iron Maidens, or the hanging, drawing and quartering of condemned men.
It is too bad that some commenters got so hung up on the FIRE, that they tripped all over their tongues, and missed the most important “ The way to correct bad information is with good information, not with censorship.” Which gives credence to “Open your Mouth and remove doubt”
Just another incompetent Affirmative Action hire. When will we ever attain MLK's wish of a color blind society? All this nonsense does is diminish the credibility of competent blacks.
“FALSELY shout fire in a crowded theater,” you meant to say. If I’m in a crowded theatre that’s actually ablaze I hope someone shouts “Fire!”
"She’ll probably get better at her judging craft..." isn't going to happen. She was nominated and confirmed for exactly the same reason as Laughing Girl at the Naval Observatory based upon color and competency is optional. These two are examples of DIE, as Kurt Schlichter calls it, run amok.
Another aphorism is that language can express thought, conceal thought, or take the place of thought. I wouldn’t be so charitable as to assume that her muddled words do not reflect muddled thinking. Is she artless, or is she witless?
I vote for witless.
ME TOO!
I suspect both.
It's better to be thought a fool than to open mouth and remove all doubt! Words to live by!
Alan Dershowitz makes the point that the first amendment not only protects the right of free speech, but also the right of the listener.
Please fact-check your reference to 'fire in a crowded theater'. I believe this has been shown to be incorrect as a legal precedent.
https://reason.com/2022/10/27/yes-you-can-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/
The piece in Reason is a bit misguided. I'll note that the author is not a lawyer and has no legal knowledge (from what I can discern in her bio - her majors were Philosophy and English Lit).
The FIRE in a crowded theater example was suggested by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. It's certainly true that the case had nothing to do with fire or theaters (and so the remarks were "dicta"), but he was making the general point that there are limits to free speech -- a point that hardly any Constitutional scholars contest. The only contest is over where to draw the line.
I can virtually guarantee that if a person falsely shouted FIRE in a crowded theater, and the result was people being trampled to reach the door, the person would be arrested and convicted, and the conviction would be upheld 9-0 by the Supreme Court.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
Point taken.
"The classic example is that a person does not have the right to shout ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theater." Dershowitz also takes issue with Holmes' example. He says it's not an example of free speech, but of shouting an alarm, the same as setting off an alarm. Of course, setting off an alarm bell is not free speech. https://jweekly.com/2004/09/10/dershowitz-shouts-reason-not-fire/
I have a great deal of respect for Dersh, (and I encourage readers to follow his podcasts on Substack) but I think he's being a little dodgy here.
To say that loudly speaking the word FIRE is not really speaking at all, is just fiction. It may amount to MORE than speech, but whatever it is, it certainly INCLUDES speech.
If Judge Jackson says it takes a biologist to determine a person's sex, at least it's an admission that sex is biological.
Of course she knew what a woman is. The fact that she refused to answer that question demonstrated why she is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court: She will reflexively acquiesce to the mob on anything controversial. This is contrary to the whole point for the existence of the Supreme Court, as a backstop to the excesses of democracy.
There was little risk in answering that question honestly. Yes, it would have annoyed the woke left. But it would have deprived the Republicans of a wedge issue on her, and it's not like the Senate Democrats would have voted her down over this. Instead she chickened out in the face of the woke mob. THIS is what should have disqualifed her from the SCOTUS.
AND, she should've at least said "I know what a BLACK WOMAN is, because that is why I am here in front of you all today!"
I would never use the word savvy to describe her. I don't think anything will ever convince me that she wasn't a poor choice.
Why Glenn, whatevah do you mean... Our great first female black something of a justice who cannot define a woman just told you she understands government censorship of the 1st Amendment. Or something...
The low information Justice’s “the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways …” utterly fails to acknowledge that this hamstringing is the glorious feature of the Amendment, not a bug.
It’s much like a pesky notion (perhaps to some low information Justices) that the Third Amendment “hamstrings” the Army from turning your home into a free-for-all commando bed and breakfast.
See: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-3/
Or perhaps another pesky notion that the 8th Amendment hamstrings the federal government from imposing criminal punishments utilizing such medieval methods like Iron Maidens, or the hanging, drawing and quartering of condemned men.
See: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-8/
See: https://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/hanging-drawing-and-quartering.htm
Question … what can be done to hamstring such low information dullards serving lifetime appointments on SCOTUS?!?
Very good Glen…..
It is too bad that some commenters got so hung up on the FIRE, that they tripped all over their tongues, and missed the most important “ The way to correct bad information is with good information, not with censorship.” Which gives credence to “Open your Mouth and remove doubt”
Just another incompetent Affirmative Action hire. When will we ever attain MLK's wish of a color blind society? All this nonsense does is diminish the credibility of competent blacks.