Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

‘Blatantly Unconstitutional’: Justice Alito Writes Blistering Dissent In Biden Admin Censorship Case
https://dailycaller.com ^ | 6/26/2024 | daily caller

Posted on 06/26/2024 9:43:27 AM PDT by bitt

Justice Samuel Alito excoriated the Supreme Court majority for “shirk[ing]” its duty to restrain the government’s coercive censorship efforts in “one of the most important free speech cases” to reach the high court in years.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided 6-3 with the Biden administration in Murthy v. Missouri, finding that two states and five individual plaintiffs lacked standing to seek an injunction against the government’s wide-ranging efforts to suppress speech online. The case concerned the federal government requesting social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter remove certain content related to COVID-19 and other hot-button issues; many of the posts that were censored were factual, and critics argued the Biden administration attempted to censor conservative viewpoints

In his dissent, Alito, who was joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, argued that the majority’s decision “permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think.”

“Their communications with Facebook were virtual demands,” he wrote, pointing to the White House’s many requests to remove “misinformation” related to COVID-19. “And Facebook’s quavering responses to those demands show that it felt a strong need to yield.”


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: censorshipcase; dissent; justicealito
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

1 posted on 06/26/2024 9:43:27 AM PDT by bitt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: null and void; aragorn; EnigmaticAnomaly; kalee; Kale; AZ .44 MAG; Baynative; bgill; bitt; ...

p


2 posted on 06/26/2024 9:43:42 AM PDT by bitt (<img src=' 'width=30%>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bitt

This looks to be bad news. Dang.


3 posted on 06/26/2024 9:47:23 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

Not clear to me on what grounds the majority made their ruling.

But, it is a dangerous precedent and very disappointing to me.


4 posted on 06/26/2024 9:49:56 AM PDT by sjmjax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bitt

Amy Conehead and Kavanaugh disappoint as usual.


5 posted on 06/26/2024 9:50:17 AM PDT by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it." )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bitt
This decision sucks.

OTOH, it was about how the plaintiffs "lack standing". It's not a judgment about the merits of the case.

So someone else can try ASAP, and we can hope they have standing.

6 posted on 06/26/2024 9:51:07 AM PDT by dayglored (Strange Women Lying In Ponds Distributing Swords! Arthur Pendragon in 2024)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bitt

also,

https://dailycaller.com/2024/06/26/exclusive-jim-jordan-lindsey-graham-cpac-letter/

EXCLUSIVE: CPAC Pressures Jim Jordan, Lindsey Graham To Open Congressional Investigation Into ‘Sabotage’ Of Supreme Court


7 posted on 06/26/2024 9:51:30 AM PDT by bitt (<img src=' 'width=30%>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bitt

This issue of “standing” will be the death of our nation. How many extremely important issues/cases have been ignored by SCOTUS purely on this basis. “And the band played on....”


8 posted on 06/26/2024 9:51:43 AM PDT by visually_augmented (I was blind, but now I see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sjmjax
> Not clear to me on what grounds the majority made their ruling.

Just "lack of standing", nothing about the actual merits of the case.

9 posted on 06/26/2024 9:51:59 AM PDT by dayglored (Strange Women Lying In Ponds Distributing Swords! Arthur Pendragon in 2024)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dayglored

Musk should be shamed in providing the strong evidence he has from Twitter to provide to new plaintiffs.


10 posted on 06/26/2024 9:52:23 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

Bingo. As I mentioned in another post on this same topic, Kavanaugh and Barrett once again betrayed their supposed conservative leanings, with Roberts pulling his usual Benedict Arnold routine. Much as I hate to say it, Trump really screwed up when he chose Kavanaugh and Barrett for the SC.


11 posted on 06/26/2024 9:52:34 AM PDT by ducttape45 (Proverbs 14:34, "Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bitt

bttt


12 posted on 06/26/2024 9:53:37 AM PDT by Pajamajan (Pray for our nation. Pray for President Trump. Never be a slave in a new Socialist America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

A very bad decision. The leftists used “public health” as the shield for this BS. Now they have free range to crush dissent.


13 posted on 06/26/2024 9:54:07 AM PDT by gibsonguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ducttape45
Bingo. As I mentioned in another post on this same topic, Kavanaugh and Barrett once again betrayed their supposed conservative leanings, with Roberts pulling his usual Benedict Arnold routine. Much as I hate to say it, Trump really screwed up when he chose Kavanaugh and Barrett for the SC.

Trump frequently didn't choose well in his appointments. I think he deffered too much to McConnell in his selections, and McConnell knew who was secretly a sell out to conservative principles. This crew overturned Roe v. Wade but is lacking in other areas.
14 posted on 06/26/2024 9:56:00 AM PDT by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it." )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bitt
finding that two states and five individual plaintiffs lacked standing to seek an injunction against the government’s wide-ranging efforts to suppress speech online.

Not good. Hopefully this issue can be reframed in a new case and brought before the SC again - hopefully one with justices more concerned about the US Constitution. The Federalist Society's recommendations are not exactly a guarantee of quality.
15 posted on 06/26/2024 9:56:25 AM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bitt

the squishes rule that tyranny is allowed under the USC


16 posted on 06/26/2024 9:59:09 AM PDT by joshua c
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joshua c
the squishes rule that tyranny is allowed under the USC

It's not that its allowed, it's just that no one has "standing" bring the case to complain. In that way, it's similar to the election suits in 2020.
17 posted on 06/26/2024 10:01:18 AM PDT by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it." )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

Not good on this issue, but hopefully good in the long haul.


18 posted on 06/26/2024 10:03:25 AM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bitt

Worst ruling since Dedd Scott.


19 posted on 06/26/2024 10:05:16 AM PDT by DownInFlames (P)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sjmjax
I think Alito is correct on the facts but is probably wrong on the legal technicalities of this particular case.

“Their communications with Facebook were virtual demands,” he wrote, pointing to the White House’s many requests to remove “misinformation” related to COVID-19. “And Facebook’s quavering responses to those demands show that it felt a strong need to yield.”

He’s 100% correct about this. But this would mean that Facebook has the legal standing to sue the U.S. government over this censorship. I don’t see how state governments and private citizens or advocacy groups would have any basis for a legal claim against the government censors here.

20 posted on 06/26/2024 10:08:07 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (“Ain't it funny how the night moves … when you just don't seem to have as much to lose.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson