Posted on 07/11/2024 3:44:57 PM PDT by george76
I'm telling you that Barrett has decided she's a politician, not a Justice...'
Tech companies are once again colluding with Democrats to push disinformation and censor legitimate conservative opinions, this time with the imprimatur of legitimacy conferred by the U.S. Supreme Court that allows them to do so more shamelessly and aggressively than ever.
Today’s censorship is being made possible by the letters A, C and B—as in Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
While the court’s two other centrists, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts, are equally culpable (along with its leftist bloc) in allowing the atrocity that is Murthy v. Missouri, it was Barrett’s name on the majority opinion.
And, indeed, her support for the wrong side in several of the court’s other recent landmark cases has raised serious red flags.
Pundit Mark Levin speculated recently that Barrrett has already gone the way of Harry Blackmun and David Souter—two Republican-appointed justices who had, by the end of their terms, become some of its most unabashedly left-leaning, likely due to what is sometimes dubbed the “Greenhouse effect” in honor of a former New York Times reporter fond of haranguing the court’s conservatives.
“I’m telling you that Barrett has decided she’s a politician, not a Justice,” Levin noted on a recent podcast, according to Newsweek. By the end of her term, the 52-year-old justice “will have flipped all the way to the left,” he added.
...
With Democrats in Congress and the media exerting immense pressure on conservative justices like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, perhaps Barrett, the court’s youngest jurist—who replaced liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsberg—remains in survival mode, opting to pick her battles carefully.
But in the process, she is throwing essential civil liberties, such as First Amendment free-speech rights, under the bus and severely undermining the safeguards that help preserve America’s democratic institutions.
CHILLING IMPLICATIONS..
Barrett’s maverick streak made no difference in the recent Fischer and Trump rulings—which sided in favor of conservatives by, respectively, tossing the Justice Department’s overreach on Jan. 6 “obstruction” cases and forcing the D.C. district court to adjudicate whether former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election challenges qualify for presidential immunity.
However, the Murthy decision—which found the court’s “wet noodle” wing delivering a win for Big Tech and the Deep State by deciding that the plaintiffs lacked sufficient standing after years of alarming anti-conservative censorship and government collusion on social-media platforms—will continue to have chilling implications for free speech until the right case comes along to overturn it.
It effectively gave sites like Google (and YouTube), Facebook (and Instagram), LinkedIn and countless other leftist dominated tech companies carte blanche to continue the sort of egregious suppression of views that many noted in the lead-up to the 2020 election, with Hunter Biden’s laptop becoming the most ignominious example.
In addition to the laptop, the case dealt with the aggressive suppression of COVID skepticism—much of which has borne out as valid, but which continues to be mischaracterized due to the stigma attached by government-backed propaganda that was designed to clear the paths for Big Pharma’s mRNA “vaccines” to get their emergency approval from the Food and Drug Administration.
Then there are the questions surrounding the irregularities in the 2020 election—questions that have fueled ongoing suspicions of massive vote fraud and a stolen election, since all of the major public and private institutions colluded to prevent any sort of meaningful presentation of evidence.
‘AN IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION FROM BIG TECH’..
The silencing of this pivotal component in democracy emboldened the Biden administration to continue pushing lie after lie, culminating in President Joe Biden’s recent debate performance, when the house of cards came tumbling down.
But luckily for the gaslighting leftist establishment, SCOTUS had come to its rescue just days before.
A three-word post from Biden’s personal account on Tuesday made clear that Democrats are fully aware of the Murthy decision’s implications and have every intention of leveraging them to their fullest advantage.
...
Project 2025
...
Biden’s campaign appears to have launched and promoted its own fake Project 2025 website—an alarmingly brazen tactic, especially coming from the party that has so frequently panic-mongered about the spread of disinformation interfering with the electoral process.
Meanwhile, the top search results for Google—and other engines, such as Yahoo and Duck Duck Go—are laden with Democrat talking points from sources like Media Matters and the Marc Elias-backed blog “Democracy Docket.”
...
COMMUNITY DOUBLE-STANDARDS AT LINKEDIN..
Search engines like Google are not the only ones likely to relish in their newfound freedom to censor dissenting or disagreeable viewpoints with impunity.
Social-media users can expect platforms traditionally hostile to conservative views to begin ratcheting up those efforts yet again, likely under duress from the federal intelligence apparatus.
LinkedIn, founded by notorious lawfare financier Reid Hoffman, has long been suspected of being one of the worst offenders.
Abandon the offending sites that are censoring you and move to a platform that does not censor you.
If you’re a Conservative and still on the fence about who you’re voting for social media is not your friend.
It’s being done to “Save our democracy”
In before the folks supporting Barrett.
Doughty found that it was the case at the lower level-is too incompetent to note lack of standing?
Thomas and Alito agreed with Doughty.
Is it ‘nuff said yet?
“It effectively gave sites like Gargle (and TheirTube), Fakebook (and SnortaGram), StinkIn and countless other leftist dominated tech companies carte blanche to continue the sort of egregious suppression of views that many noted in the lead-up to the 2020 election, with Hunter Biden’s laptop becoming the most ignominious example.”
.
I look at TheirTube.
I would not even know how to get to the rest of them.
.
Abandoning every aspect: the site, the product by those sites(where applicable) and their parent companies’ sites and products are the necessary solution.
It would be like someone who says they don’t like how woke Pizza Hut went and declaring they’re going to go to Taco Bell or KFC instead. Ever heard of “Yum! Brands”?
Tech companies have been virtually unharmed by go woke go broke in measurable ways. Amazon, Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, and more have completely gotten away with their poison.
I don’t know how she “went over to the dark side.” She is exactly as advertised and expected. If anything, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch are a tiny bit to the right of what is expected, and where they will end up. Gorsuch was significantly to the left of Anthony Kennedy when they were on the court together.
Censoring makes them content creators, not hosting sites under Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act, and as content creators they have no immunity from lawsuits.
Amy Coney Barrett- shocker!!! Suburban white female turns out to be concerned with how others “feel” about her more than anything in the world.
Who could have seen someone accustomed to being lauded not wanting to come to DC and give that up?
Switching off the poison doesn’t happen overnight.
You have to start somewhere. Eventually, even the left will abandon their echo chamber when they discover they’re all that remains, and if they don’t, they’re better off which each other and away from the rest of humanity, IMO.
When she was confirmed, it was widely predictable that she would turn out to be the “standard” female SCOTUS...
Disasters, every one of them...
LinkedIn, Google Openly Censor Conservatives (Again) after SCOTUS’s Murthy Decision
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.