‘Blatantly Unconstitutional’: Justice Alito Writes Blistering Dissent In Biden Admin Censorship Case

https://dailycaller.com ^ | 6/26/2024 | daily caller

[TexasFreeper2009]

when the government uses its power to suppress the free speech rights of anyone, EVERYONE should have standing to sue because EVERYONE was denied the right to HEAR what would have been said!!!!!!!!!

[tflabo]

And to think the very competent conservative judge Robert Bork got jipped out of being selected for SCOTUS but the compromised lightweights get it instead. RIP judge Bork- surely Heaven has an honorable seat reserved for you.

[skimbell]

Yep, I don't know that the US can survive any more of DJT’s picks should he have anymore.

[NorthMountain]

The way “standing” is interpreted by almost all courts, “standing” is very difficult to achieve in cases regarding government malfeasance of misfeasance.

Almost all cases regarding electoral misconduct have been dismissed on the basis of “lack of standing”. This problem is at least 30 years old that I know of.

[Carl Vehse]

The SCOTUS majority has ruled that states and individuals harmed by kakistocratic policies and actions suppressing First Amendment free speech no longer have “standing” to sue.

Expect future SCOTUS majority opinions to rule against any “standing” to sue the federal kakistocracy for their suppression of the remaining constitutional Bill of Rights.

[nesnah]

OTOH, it was about how the plaintiffs "lack standing".
-----
Maybe they should come at it from a beaner, still wet from Rio Grande River water. They certainly have "standing" these days.

[Scrambler Bob]

I I haven’t been aborted, I guess I don’t have standing to object to abortion processes and decisions.

[PGR88]

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.

Indeed, if a State AG, representing 6.2 million people in a State, using social media every minute of every day, does not have "standing," who does? Its an absolutely bizarre ruling as so many SCOTUS decisions (and thus progressive policy) in the last 70 years is done exactly according to this process.

[griswold3]

Thank you, Justice Samuel Alito!

[bantam]

“Amy Conehead and Kavanaugh disappoint as usual.”
___________________________
Traitors to their Oath, and Country!

[gibsonguy]

Just like they denied Trump standing in 20. A transparent and insulting dodge.

[Robert DeLong]

What I want to know is how they came to the conclusion that the litigants lacked standing, and how would one qualify as having standing?

[gitmo]

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.

So, WHO would have standing in a case where the Federal Government is suppressing free speech on a wider scale than ever imagined in the US?

[Robert DeLong]

Furthermore, why did it take so long for them to determine that they didn’t have standing?

[Alberta's Child]

The SCOTUS majority has ruled that states and individuals harmed by kakistocratic policies and actions suppressing First Amendment free speech no longer have "standing" to sue.

That's not exactly true. What the SCOTUS has ruled is that any "harm" suffered by the individuals should be addressed by suing Facebook, not the U.S. government.

I suspect they'd have a hard time pursuing a case against Facebook anyway ... because these individuals would have the impossible task of proving they've actually suffered any harm at all.

[dead]

[Alberta's Child]

So, WHO would have standing in a case where the Federal Government is suppressing free speech on a wider scale than ever imagined in the US?

In this particular case, FACEBOOK would. But Facebook would never sue the U.S. government over this. The platform is a mess on its own without any government intervention.

[gitmo]

What about the millions of Americans whose free speech was blocked or hidden where no one could read their posts?

[Alberta's Child]

If they were truly harmed (which is hard to establish when you are using a free online platform, unless the platform’s terms and conditions explicitly state that its members won’t be censored), then they’d have recourse against Facebook.

[Revel]

Gorsuch is the only one of Trumps picks that cares about the constitution or the law. At least most of the time. The other two are hacks and ACB may even surpass the other liberals on the court. She cares nothing about the constitution, the law, or the country. And I feel that even if Trump is elected the USSC will be the doom of this country. They do not have equal power. They have all of the power. And they are lawless.