Rand Paul Calls This, "The Most Consequential Free Speech Case in U.S. History"

Rand Paul and Matt Taibbi should team up more often

Kentanji Brown Jackson should not have a job in the Supreme Court.

She should not have a job anywhere in the legal system.

Jackson is not even qualified to flip burgers at Mickey D’s.

We knew she was a waste of time when she could not define a woman.

"Can I provide a definition? No. I can’t,” Jackson said.

“You can’t?” Blackburn asked. “So you believe the meaning of the word ‘woman’ is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?”

And now things have gotten much worse.

Jackson cannot define the purpose of the First Amendment.

This is the, ehh, woman (can we say for sure?) we expect to interpret the law?

She is worried about those pesky rights like the First and Second Amendments interfering with the blank check she’s written the government for usurpation of our entire lives.

Matt Taibbi says,

“Listening to Ketanji Brown Jackson complain that plaintiffs opposing censorship programs might be “hamstringing” the government, when the entire purpose of the First Amendment is to hamstring government, was like someone driv[ing] a tank back and forth over Old Yeller.”

The fundamental rights of Americans are up for grabs when Democrats are on the case.

Jim Jordan had this to say…