Posted on 06/26/2024 6:29:24 AM PDT by CFW
The Supreme Court of the United States will be issuing Opinions today beginning at 10:00 a.m. Attorneys with scotusblog will be live-blogging from the press room and I will be posting the Opinions of the Court here. A list of all the cases from the October 2023 cases is listed here: October 2023 term. A short descriptive of the issue(s) before the court is included. If the case has already been decided that fact is indicated as well.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
Amy Commie Barrett wrote Murthy. Another dodge. The plaintiffs have no legal right to sue.
I don’t think that the Defendents showed harm.
We have two full and four half conservatives, for a total of four full conservatives on a nine-member court.
This was one of THE most important cases before the SCOTUS - not some minor case that could be thrown away as a sop to cushion the blow in other more important cases. This is just awful.
Snyder v. U.S., No. 23-108 [Arg: 4.15.2024]
Issue(s): Whether section 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions.
Any chance of an opinion tomorrow ahead of the debate?
Therefore, due to this dodge by Roberts, it remains legal to censor-by-proxy.
See, I knew it. I remember when Second Amendment activists would say, “If they can dilute or remove the Second Amendment, then how would you like it, mass media, if the First Amendment was also diluted or removed?”
I’d remark that this is their plan all along.
Once again, I was right.
I’m getting sick of being right all the time.
Were any of them censored or banned? Did the censorship and the bans have a chilling effect on their speech? Then they were harmed.
Will have to check on that.
This is madness.
Agreed. This will allow internet providers and carriers to deny service to sites with 'unpopular opinions'.
You know, kinda like this forum.
Looks like a real gut punch...bye,bye Freedom of Speech!
Don’t fret over it.
This did nothing to address the merits of the case.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf
This is a case about the construction of federal bribery laws, which make it a crime for state and local officials to “corruptly” accept a bribe. The question before the court was whether the law makes it a crime for those officials to accept gratuities that may be given as a token of appreciation after the official act.
The answer, the court says, is no. “State and local governments often regulate the gifts that state and local governments may accept. [The federal law] does not supplement those state and local rules by subjecting 19 million state and local officials to up to 10 years in federal prison for accepting even commonplace gratuities. Rather, [the federal law] leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials.”
That’s all the opinions for today folks. We will do it again tomorrow.
RE: Snyder
Jackson in her dissent notes that the defendant in this case was convicted by a jury of violating the federal law after he steered more than $1 million in city contracts to a local truck dealership, which then gave him a check for $13,000 as a consulting fee. “Snyder’s absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s Court could love,” Jackson writes.
Am I reading too much into Snyder v. US to see it as another slap at Jack Smith (echoing the 8-1 McDonnell smackdown)?
Don’t fret over it.
This did nothing to address the merits of the case.
So, the solution is to find someone with “standing”, have the case wind its way through the courts and three years from now, when probably two of the justices who dissented have retired, let the court have another bite at the apple.
By then, so much information will have been censored, who knows where our nation will stand?
I’m being a bit snarky here. I haven’t yet read the opinion.
Agreed, it’s AWFUL. But I’m trying to read the John Roberts tea leaves.
You don't get it. The merits don't matter if they rule nobody has standing. You never get to the merits in that case. You're never allowed to present the merits.
As if biden wouldn’t try it anyway if cheats again.
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.