Progressivism and Pure Reason

American Thinker ^ | 8 May, 2024 | Brian Cabana

[MtnClimber]

As the progressive Elite grows in power, it has come increasingly to rejoice in its own shared consciousness and increasingly abhors showing any sort of consideration for the civic American tradition.

The conservative media sphere was collectively stirred by the recent claim of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, during oral arguments in Missouri vs. Biden, that restricting the government’s power to police social media for ‘misinformation’ -- the critical issue of the case -- would result in “The First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.” Jackson continued, “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."

In unison the right fired back with what seems a self-evident refutation of Jackson’s position -- namely that restricting the power of government to tip the speech scales in favor of policies that agree with “the government’s perspective” is the entire point of the First Amendment

But such objections are of course not self-evident. They seem so within the cultural context of what might be called the Old Time American Religion -- the civic mythology in which the values of the Declaration of Independence are held to be sacred, the Founding Generation venerated, the Revolution told as a heroic epic, and so forth. But the current American elite progressive class -- of which Ms. Jackson is a preeminent avatar -- is simply not impressed with the Old Time Religion.

Indeed, the very designation of “progressive” elucidates how this class understands itself relative to this -- or any -- tradition. Progressivism views politics as an exercise in emancipation from tradition -- which is dismissed in toto as a mélange of superstitions and oppressions from a benighted past -- and towards a society of maximally free individuals...

[MtnClimber]

The elitists hate individual freedom for anyone except themselves.

[Qwapisking]

how can the so-called “Elite” lord over “The People” if we won’t just hand over the reins to the government that was established Of The People, by the People, for the People...even though it’s obvious government no longer Serves the people?

[MtnClimber]

The “right” needs to start resisting too.

[rfp1234]

Immanuel Kant was an old pissant...

[joe fonebone]

Now ask if the fed passing a law removing a Web site from Americans web page is OK.
Then bring up tic Tok.

[rx]

The Brunson case before SCOTUS seeks removal from government those who are unfaithful to their oaths of office.

That would immediately all in government who have actively worked--for example, within the DOJ--to censor US citizens and deprive citizens of their 1st Amendment rights.

Ketanji Brown Jackson (KBJ) pretends that one can claim fealty to the Constitution by novel interpretations of the Constitution and novel definitions of words found in the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

I don't believe novel interpretations and novel definition of the country's foundational legal documents absolve one from a justice's oath of office.

SCOTUS should use Brunson to remove KBJ. It should also remove from office many Congressional members who have voted for bills that are facially repugnant to the clear meaning of many Amendments found in the Bill of Rights.