Some of our Constitutional rights are actually written quite directly in plain English with no interpretation needed whatsoever.

One such right is our freedom of speech. The First Amendment actually says “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.”

But Supreme Court Justice John Roberts obviously does not know how to read English – or he’s just a communist. I pick the latter based on other idiotic decisions that he’s made. He is definitely proven to be anti-Constitution while he has sat on the bench.

A recent Supreme Court decision concerning our freedom of speech was decided 8-1 in the favor of the Constitution. Roberts, of course, was the “one” dissenter.

Yes, that’s right. Even leftist Justices Sotomayor and Kagan thought we should continue to have freedom of speech. 

Roberts did not. He thinks conditions apply.

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, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

The case had to do with a black Christian who is the son of Nigerian immigrant parents, Chike Uzuegbunam who wanted to evangelize at the public college Georgia Gwinnett College in 2016. Oh the horror!

He was stopped from doing so twice. The first time he tried it, he just went out on his own like any normal person would. He was threatened with discipline.

Uzuegbunam said, “All I wanted to do was share with other students the faith that changed my life. 

The school said that he could only evangelize at certain times and at certain places. They seemed to have thought that the Constitution has asterisks in it like most leftist progressives do. 

Uzuegbunam was ordered to keep his free speech limited to a “speech zone.” Those zones at the school make up less than 0.0015% of the campus and the concept itself is totally unconstitutional. 

Nevertheless, Uzuegbunam got a permit to evangelize and he was STILL ordered to stop. Why? Because the snowflakes around him complained. So both his free speech rights AND his free exercise of religion were being oppressed.

When Uzuegbunam sued the college, they changed the policy and said his lawsuit was moot.

He went ahead with the lawsuit anyway to get damages for the violation of his rights. Fellow student Joseph Bradford joined the lawsuit saying that the school’s policies made him remain silent about his religious beliefs. They asked for nominal damages of $1.00.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that they didn’t have standing to sue the college and ruled against them.


The case went to the Superme Court and Justice Thomas wrote that Uzuegbunam experienced a “completed violation of his constitutional rights” and that he experienced damages because you do whenever there is a violation of a right. It doesn’t have to be in economic terms.

Chief Roberts, of course, dissented. He doesn’t think Uzuegbunam deserves any damages because he’s no longer a student, the rules no longer exist and there are no economic damages. He also said that this case expanded the judicial role of solving “real disputes.” He didn’t consider the oppression of freedom of speech a real dispute.

Roberts is beyond despicable. 

He seems to think we are not “damaged” just because we have our rights taken away from us. What a guy.

What the decision ultimately means is that colleges are now on notice that they can’t suppress our free speech rights anymore. 

It’s not like some places won’t keep trying though. We know that. What’s sad is that the case had to go to court at all for a “decision” on the matter when the Constitution already gives us a final decision.

But Roberts’ commie mind does not agree.

Kristen Waggoner, Uzuebunam’s Counsel from the Alliance Defending Freedom had argued in court “Our constitutional rights are invaluable and must always be protected. When government officials treat our rights as worthless, those rights disappear. Changing unconstitutional policies is an important first step. But policy changes alone do not remedy the harm done to those whose rights were violated by the government.”


Newsflash Commie Roberts: It doesn’t really matter if our “economic” damage is 5¢ or zero. If our Constitutional rights are taken away from us at every level of government, we have the right to go to the Supreme Court for redress even if you don’t think you should be bothered with the case.

I’ll be mailing Roberts a map to China soon because he certainly doesn’t belong in the United States of America. I wouldn’t even mind starting a Go-Fund Me page to pay for his trip. 

Good riddance and bon voyage.