Long time no written post. If you follow my commentary you should bookmark my Rumble or Bitchute link as I do more video content than writing these days. That said, onto the subject.
One of the things I have noticed over the years is the difference in how "Conservatives" and "Liberals" view the US government. I specify the US government because there are different assumptions that underpin other governments. For example. in England you are a subject of the crown (however ceremonial). There are no inherent rights, there are rights granted by the crown and Parliament.
In the US the opposite is true. The government [should} have only the power granted to it by the citizens. It's written right there in the US Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
See, if the power hasn't been delegated by the Constitution, etc. are reserved to the people. Not granted to or otherwise transferred FROM the state. Nope. reserved. Similarly the other Amendments are restraints upon the government. The government is prohibited from abridging speech. The first amendment does not grant free speech, it restrains the government. Language like this is all over the constitution. You'd expect a judge to understand this. Enter Sotomayor:
"Justice Sotomayor, in dissent, countered by criticizing the majority for failing to identify any precedent that barred universal injunctions, but as Justice Barrett noted in a footnote, “this absence only bolsters our case” given it shows “no party even bothered to ask for such a sweeping remedy — because no court would have entertained the request”." [ My underlines]
The underlined is what is a root of why we currently have the conflict between conservatives and liberals. Liberals are of the opinion that the government is (or should be) all powerful and if there isn't a specific prohibition against something [that they want] then it must be something the government can do. Conservatives and indeed the Constitution itself have the position that if the power to do something hasn't specifically been granted to the government, then it cannot do it.
This worldview is why Brown-Jackson could comment during a previous case that she found that the first amendment was hobbling the government's ability to deal with "disinformation"? Yeah, that IS the point.
You cannot share a government with people who have a fundamental different understanding of the role of government. This is not about having the same understanding but disagreeing on how to address an issue within the shared understanding. This is a fight for control.
