Murthy v. Missouri: SCOTUS Decision Analysis

UncoverDC ^ | 6/26/24 | Tracy Beanz

[CFW]

I want to make sure this is clear from the get-go—this is a terrible opinion. I am not happy about it. HOWEVER, this opinion had to do with the TEMPORARY INJUNCTION in this case...... The court is making a decision whether, at this stage of the game, after limited (will get to that in a moment) discovery, the Plaintiffs have the right to an injunction that would halt the government from coercing and cooperating with social media platforms to censor speech.

The Justices used whether the plaintiffs had STANDING at this stage of the game as their basis for decision. Which I ALSO think is utter nonsense. When this case went before them, they placed a stay on the injunction that was decided in the lower district court AND the 5th circuit court of appeals.

We can get into the future later on in the thread—but to note: when the stay was placed on the temporary injunction, three Justices DISSENTED stating their colleagues hadn’t read the record. I believe that still to be the case. I believe the Justices made this decision based on the oral argument. The oral argument was POOR.

Here is some of the meat from the syllabus: “Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III Standing to seek an injunction against any defendant.” The SCOTUS is saying at this stage, the plaintiffs must show the substantial risk that in the near future, at least one platform will restrict the speech of at least one plaintiff in response to the actions of at least one government defendant. “Here, at the preliminary injunction stage, they must show that they are likely to succeed in carrying that burden. On the record, in this case, that is a tall order”

[CFW]

An analysis from Tracy Beanz who has following this case closely from day one.

[CFW]

ping to the SCOTUS list

Tracy Beanz covers some of the issues and questions we discussed in today’s SCOTUS thread.

[Sidebar Moderator]

Thanks, FRiend!

[CottonBall]

ty!

[freds6girlies]

bookmark

[Sidebar Moderator]

Tracy Beanz nails it. We lost at the oral arguments stage. I was hoping against hope that, upon further review and discussion among the justices, a majority would ultimately find for the plaintiff. I guess the old rule of thumb holds: the strongest indication of how a case will be decided can be deciphered from oral arguments.

[Mark]

FREEPATHON ALERT! Folks, we have only 4 days of the quarter left, and we’re only at 93% to goal...gotta get’r’done!

[Sidebar Moderator]

Interestingly, she’s one of the very few legal analysts to point out that the case was remanded, not dismissed. Every main stream media article I’ve read erroneously claims the lawsuit was thrown out.

[Alberta's Child]

I don't think the decision today was outlandish. I've said earlier today that the three justices in the minority were correct on the facts but wrong on the law in this particular case.

The plaintiffs in this case had no cause of action against the U.S. government, since THEY were not the ones who were censored and they could not demonstrate that they had suffered any harm as a result of the censorship. FACEBOOK has all the legal standing they would need to pursue legal action, but they'll never do that because they are (effectively) an arm of the U.S. government anyway.

[Racketeer]

Yes, but they certainly laid out the roadmap for the government to follow. Thank God it is not over and I look forward to the continued fight.

[cdnerds]

Please add me to the ping list, if I'm not already on it.

[dadfly]

after reading these opinions. thank God for Alito and Thomas, but the construction of this opinion makes this court essentially activist and liberal—very much inclined to create brand new, arbitrary requirements, against established precedent, and hamstringing the wronged while protecting powerful evil-doers and their dark deeds, all in the name of ‘security.’ quite interesting how Beanz points this out while the court is basically punting, preserving it’s previous position on the injunction.

the bulk of their rulings on election fraud, jabs, gov’t censorship scream this.

still, i hope and pray the lower courts quickly replace the injunction, having read the truth in Alito’s dissent. we need max protection from the gov’t on this tack of their election fraud.