Politics

Biden High Court Nominee No Friend Of Free Speech

Or freedom of faith.

Image Credit: YouTube Screenshot

It is not surprising that a Biden nominee to the Supreme Court is not a fan of free speech. The Constitution means little to the Left. It is just a document to get around in their twisted quest for total power. For student leader Kristan Hawkins, that has made an impact on free speech when it comes to the abortion question and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Hawkins: Nominating a justice to the Supreme Court can feel a lot like picking a ruler, as appointments last a lifetime, and someone’s word becomes law. Literally.

The only restraint on individuals is their willingness to be guided first and foremost by the U.S. Constitution. But that’s not what President Joe Biden was looking for when he chose Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson for a seat on the Supreme Court. Searching for a judge with “a living constitution” perspective, Biden wanted someone who leaned toward creative writing rather than Constitutional loyalty, which should trouble U.S. Senators when they question the nominee on Monday.

Do you support individual military members being able to opt out of getting the COVID vaccine?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has a Constitutional problem, which should concern everyone who cares about the kind of power a judge can seize with the stroke of a pen.

Case in point: On the issue of abortion, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson helped defend what isn’t in the Constitution — barbaric late-term partial birth abortion. And she ignored what is in the Constitution — free speech rights for pro-life Americans.

For a pro-life, student-oriented group like mine, Judge Jackson’s record on free speech strikes at the heart of our business model, in which students choose to engage on behalf of the human rights issue of the day. Their speech, their choice, right?

Consider the case of a Texas high school where students voted who would lead a prayer – until the Supreme Court weighed in. In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, Judge Jackson worked with now retiring Justice Stephen Breyer to oppose student-initiated prayer before high school football games, despite the fact that no one was forced to participate.

In a fierce dissent, Chief Justice William Rehnquist strongly opposed the “hostility to all things religious in public life,” noting the justices who had crushed student prayer with a Constitutional argument were ignoring the record.

“Neither the holding nor the tone of the opinion is faithful to the meaning of the Establishment Clause, when it is recalled that George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of ‘public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God,’” Rehnquist wrote in his dissent.

The Bill of Rights also permits peaceful assembly of pro-life Americans outside of abortion vendors that seemed to offend Judge Jackson.

In 2001, she worked as an attorney filing an amicus brief (friend of the court argument) in McGuire v. Reilly on behalf of strident abortion supporters like the Abortion Access Project of Massachusetts and NARAL Pro-Choice America who wanted a “buffer zone” around abortion vendors to prevent peaceful, pro-life speech.

At issue was whether one point of view – a pro-life message of love for both mother and preborn child – could be blocked. Speech in favor of abortion, or even in favor of getting a hamburger at any nearby restaurant, was acceptable, which is the heart of viewpoint discrimination. Fighting against this kind of discrimination has taken Students for Life to court often, including filing an amicus brief in another buffer zone case Price v. City of Chicago.

“Suffice it to say,” Scalia said about a similar case, “that if protecting people from unwelcome communications (the governmental interest the Court posits) is a compelling state interest, the First Amendment is a dead letter.”

David Kamioner
meet the author

David Kamioner is a veteran of U.S. Army Intelligence and an honors graduate of the University of Maryland's European Division. He also served with the Pershing Nuclear Brigade and the First Infantry Division. Subsequent to that he worked for two decades as a political consultant, was part of the American Red Cross Hurricane Katrina disaster relief effort in Louisiana, ran a homeless shelter for veterans in Philadelphia, and taught as a college instructor. He serves as a Contributing Editor for LifeZette.

Join the Discussion

COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.