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 ...
“Am I reading too much into Snyder v. US to see it as another slap at Jack Smith (echoing the 8-1 McDonnell smackdown)?”
That’s a interesting viewpoint. I’ll have to read the opinion and let that thought simmer a while.
From scotusblog:
Report from Mark Walsh, who is now back from the courtroom. Justice Alito was in the courtroom today, but Justice Gorsuch was not. (Justice Gorsuch has a lot of opinions left to write — perhaps this is the equivalent of skipping class to work on your overdue paper?)
WIth only two opinions today, makes me suspect there will be another opinion day (or two) added into the July 4 week.
Hope Gorsuch doesn’t have a dog, or worse, a very hungry dog.
This is good for Truth Social who has promised not to censor any voice, left or right, and they can’t be shut off by Amazon as they are on rumble’s system
time to go Truth Social; can’t be/won’t be banned for political speech.
From what I've been able to tell, I think Barrett is likely to be a real problem going forward, perhaps even worse than the weirdo egotist, Gorsuch. Not that Barrett is some sort of plant or something. Just that, from what I've seen of, and read by, her, she comes across as something of an estrogen-drenched ditz. Biden has already gotten more out of Jackson, who's got some real Leftist brass to her.
All three of Trump's appointments are shaping up to be real duds. Kavanaugh was a known commodity: a midwit hack. A reliable vote for the favored few. But, at the same time, those types always end up being "statists" in the end, when individual liberty is at stake. Always.
It's all very disappointing. Maybe there isn't any jurist out there who's worth a shi*t nowadays? But 0-3, if that's how it should turn out, suggests something more than "coincidence." "Enemy action" is more like it.
For months in 2021 and 2022, a coterie of officials at the highest levels of the Federal Government continuously harried and implicitly threatened Facebook with potentially crippling consequences if it did not comply with their wishes about the suppression of certain COVID–19-related speech. Not surprisingly, Facebook repeatedly yielded.
***
The Court...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.
***
For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech. Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent.
SCOTUS sets policy, then does nothing when the Circuit Courts of Appeal “misapply” that policy, in most cases.
Looks to me like the social media case could have been a slam dunk had Musk provided information. That’s because the plaintiffs have to show close correlation between the gov communication and the harmful resulting actions of the platform. Sounds like the plaintiffs here just didn’t have sufficient data/proof according to the majority opinion.
But Musk had more than enough data to show causality to harm, had he made that available (instead of his fake little limited hangout releases).
So plaintiffs couldn’t prove direct orders from government. Plausible deniability.
Great. another reason to lose hope
"The SCOTUS ruled the plaintiffs had no standing to ask for the TEMPORARY INJUNCTION that basically would've ruled they win the case automatically.
The case does move forward."
---
If the plaintiffs don't have standing to ask for an injunction, I don't see how they have standing for the case to continue.
The issues before the court were as follows: "Issue(s): (1) Whether respondents have Article III standing; (2) whether the government’s challenged conduct transformed private social media companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated respondents’ First Amendment rights; and (3) whether the terms and breadth of the preliminary injunction are proper."
I read that as whether they have standing to bring the case, not whether they have standing to ask for ask for an injunction.
Now, I'm going to have to read the entire opinion.
Anyone who has "hope" that the failure of our constitutional order can be fixed by the resort to that same failed order is, I'm sorry to say, something of a fool to start with.
We just need to "vote harder," I guess.
Wow, I disagree with the substance of the decision, it does give our side another bite at the apple. What they are saying is that our side needs to present a better case. Part of the problem is that our side argued that everything the social media companies did with regard to censorship was because of the government, when any idiot could’ve told you that a bunch of left-leaning tech companies (including One, Facebook, whose principal owner spent some $400 million on vote harvesting for the Democrat Party) would do some on their own without specific direction. This needs to be refined to more closely reflect reality. Again, we have another bite at the apple somewhere down the line. We also now know that states aren’t the proper plaintiffs. Maybe what our side needs to do is find a bunch of people who have had their posts censored, including political candidates and independent journalists trying to report dirt on Leftist candidates, office holders and NGOs.
After a little coffee, Make that 8-0 … lol
Me thinks, as CFW suggested, there may have been some late jawboning, flipping the fourth vote for Cert to the dark side.
It looks like the only option now is for states to regulate Big Tech like utilities and pass laws which enact harsh punishments for any discriminatory provision of service for anything but....key words here....CLEARLY ILLEGAL speech. Get Texas and Florida and several other red states to do so and that will have a big impact.
“After a little coffee, Make that 8-0 … lol”
LOL indeed!
I may have to get out the 40-cup coffee maker. I’m reading the First Amendment (Murthy) opinion and am only on page 10 of the 66 page Opinion.
Barrett really pisses me off. She even mentions the suppression of Hunter Biden’s laptop information (page 3 of the opinion) and fails to mention that the NYPost article turned out to be true.
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.