Posted on 06/26/2024 7:25:23 AM PDT by Coronal
"Standing" is the new way to ignore what The People want, and doing the bidding in the Courts as paid/co-erced/threatened/intimidated to do, by the New World Order.
Since when, in a National Federal Election, do Citizens NOT have Standing when their votes are negated and voices blocked? Is "Standing" ONLY established by those who donate enough $$$$$ to The Agenda, or are a Designated Protected Class?
The coup of 2020 was turned back in the Courts at every turn, by the "Standing" rejections, even where the plain Facts and Evidence was CLEARLY in hand, but no one was allowed to bring a Case. How is "Standing" consistent with the 14th Amendment's "Equal Protection under the Law" Provision?????
Oh, they can see it alright. It's just that, when all is said and done, they're not actually opposed to it.
People who seek refuge from governmental oppression from those who are themselves government workers -- which is all that, at the end of the day, Supreme Court Justices are -- set themselves up for this sort of disappointment.
So the deciding issue was whether there was coercion? But my argument is that it is almost impossible to entangle cooperation with the government’s preference, which amounts to self censorship, from the fear that not cooperating means being punished. That in my mind is censorship. It does not always have to be a direct “shall not.” It is enough if an action is taken because of the implication of government displeasure.
The democrats will do it again and again and again
Makes sense. The social media companies were just looking for political cover to do the things they already wanted to do. If the administration had prosecuted or issued regulations muzzling them, that would be justiciable. And in any case, if the social media companies had felt aggrieved, they could have sued. Facebook’s profits are in the tens of billions.
“Standing” again. This utterly absurd legal concept must be significantly revised. It is the root of 90% of the bad judgments coming out of all courts.
For this essential case, he had his dogsbody, Barrett, apply the Roberts Dodge.
Yep!
But the Biden Administration did in fact ask, there are emails
“Terrible decision. Basically it’s unclear who, if anyone, has standing to sue when the gov jawbones a media outlet to stifle criticism, and it ignores the mountain of evidence presented showing censorship, as Alito points out.”
On this matter, Alito would be the activist judge legislating from the bench that we all fear. Jawboning the media is what every government entity does. When the government starts passing legislation or formal rules for controlling what the media presents, then we’d have an actual 1st Amendment violation.
“Right, and it was probably done VOLUNTARILY. And while I might not like it, this is probably the correct conclusion.”
So doing the same with newspapers would also be fine with you? Maybe we now are the Soviet Union, after all.
“Headline is false. Standing was the issue and the plaintiff’s were all lumped under same umbrella.”
One has to have their ducks in a row on standing (according to how the Supremes view standing) or the SC is given any easy way out.
“Standing” again. This utterly absurd legal concept must be significantly revised. It is the root of 90% of the bad judgments coming out of all courts.
While I understand your frustration, “standing” is a fundamental element of our legal system. Standing merely requires a showing that the parties in court are actually people who have sustained some direct harm from the action being contested. Absent a government silent on all matters, standing requires a showing of harm for the government’s speech or action.
There is a lot of doom and gloom about the 6-3 SCOTUS decision in Murthy v. Biden and how it impacts the 1st Amendment
I would like to quell some of those concerns
This decision reversed the injunction based on *standing*
SCOTUS said that without the plaintiffs having sufficient standing, they could not decide the case on the merits
The case is still allowed to proceed *on the merits* in lower federal courts as to whether the gov’t violated the plaintiff’s 1st Amendment right to free speech on social media
Long story short, this battle for free speech rights is NOT over and SCOTUS will likely get further involved down the road
10:45 AM · Jun 26, 2024 · 10.7K Views
But this ruling allows the government to apply more pressure to Musk to go along with the Establishment Social Media guidelines that the left will make up as needed to push their agenda on any number of “crucial” issues.
So from now on one must assume what they read is a lie! What if Trump fires the current FBI and has his own FBI would the other side say it’s ok?
I get that. And here’s why its so hideously wrong:
I am a US Citizen. ANY federal vote for ANY president and/or US senator, even not from my state, that is acquired illegally, should automatically give me standing.
This nation is rapidly sliding towards a communist Marxist dictatorship government run by the DOJ, CIA and the FBI. It’s gonna come to a point that we are not going to need a president anymore. I cannot believe the Supreme Court rule in behalf of the untouchable FJB well oiled administration and his evil hordes of DC swamp creatures. You would think what they did to Thomas, Alito, Amy Barrett, and Kavanagh they would side with the first amendment. This is sickening and dangerous! We are losing rapidly our freedoms and seem our constitution is in its last gasps of life.
For God’s sake, read the decision.
There was no examination of whether or not coercion happened. The lawsuit was so stupidly structured that evaluation of the events actually taking place was never judged.
THE PLAINTIFFS LACKED STANDING, and how could they not know that? Monumental stupidity. Probably money involved. The lawyers bringing the suit made no effort to establish standing. There must be clear injury to the specific parties brining the lawsuit, and politics does not qualify as injury.
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.