Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Supreme Court Is Not Going To Save You
The Federalist ^ | June 26, 2024 | John Daniel Davidson

Posted on 06/26/2024 4:34:31 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in Murthy v. Missouri dropped Wednesday, shattering the hopes of conservatives that maybe, just maybe, the Judicial Branch would stand up for the First Amendment rights of ordinary Americans against the egregious abuses of the executive bureaucracy.

But no. The Court instead ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the Biden White House allegedly backed off of its censorship campaign after the 2022 midterms (it didn’t). The ruling essentially allows the federal government to continue trampling on the First Amendment rights of ordinary Americans by deputizing social media companies to do what federal agencies cannot do directly: police what Americans are allowed to say online.

If this result shocks you, if you’re surprised and outraged that the Supreme Court, which you thought was dominated by a solid conservative majority, you shouldn’t be. If you thought the supposedly conservative majority on the Court was going to check the worst impulses of the executive branch and restore the constitutional rights of Americans, you shouldn’t have. If you reposed your hope for the survival of the American republic in five or six black-robed justices who would stand athwart the tyranny of the administrative state and the collapse of our political institutions, you can say goodbye to all that. The Supreme Court is not going to save America.

And just to be clear, neither is Donald Trump. In fact, the Court’s ruling makes it all the more likely that Trump won’t even get the chance, because it gives the Biden administration a greenlight to ramp up a speech suppression campaign ahead of the November election through “censorship by surrogate,” in the memorable phrase of constitutional law attorney Jonathan Turley.

(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: censorship; dissent; freespeech; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last
To: E. Pluribus Unum

Need to have a Butlerian Jihad against all these robots.


21 posted on 06/26/2024 5:11:12 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus

“Roberts is a traitor. The women are useless morons especially Barrett

Kavanagh is a cuck.”


By your count, that would make 6 reliable votes for the “center-left” majority of the Court.


22 posted on 06/26/2024 5:19:02 PM PDT by Bob Wills is still the king (Just a Texas Playboy at heart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Government coercion is censorship. Cooperating with it is not an exercise in free speech rights. It is just further proof that suppressing the liberty and freedoms of the everyday citizen is essential to advancing a Utopia of Elites and will not let something as paltry as our Constitution stand in their way.


23 posted on 06/26/2024 5:23:12 PM PDT by lastchance (Cognovit Dominus qui sunt eius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Picture this: The former head of the NSA got put on the board of OpenAI. The future in front of us is going to be a struggle.


24 posted on 06/26/2024 5:28:23 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
So who will?

Jesus, lurker and Him alone.

25 posted on 06/26/2024 5:35:25 PM PDT by itsahoot (Many Republicans are secretly Democrats, no Democrats are secretly Republicans. Dan Bongino.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

I suspect McConnell and Graham approached him and said, we will not confirm W, Y, and Z / and canned his first three choices.

The Republicans pinned him down with Mueller and many wanted extensions of that fraudulent Investigation.


26 posted on 06/26/2024 5:35:38 PM PDT by OakOak (Misinformation Campaign on your TV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus

Kavanaugh tried to placate his critics by hiring only female clerks. It was a clear indication that the left-wing intimidation worked. He ain’t no Scalia, that’s for sure.


27 posted on 06/26/2024 5:35:46 PM PDT by Mr. N. Wolfe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Guess its just one more silly precedent set by the left that Trump will get to enjoy when he is the President again.


28 posted on 06/26/2024 5:36:54 PM PDT by MrRelevant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET

This is a Jim Noble guest appearance.

I was chairman of the Rudy Giuliani 2008 FR caucus and survived the purge.

It was rough around here. Can anyone doubt that if my guy had been nominated instead of McCain, that we would have had Obama as a footnote to history?


29 posted on 06/26/2024 5:37:13 PM PDT by Jim Noble (Assez de mensonges et de phrases)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I disagree with the author. The censorship was egregious but the plaintiffs in this case had no cause of action against the U.S. government. THEY were not censored; FACEBOOK was ... which means Facebook has the legal standing to sue the government over a First Amendment violation, not ordinary citizens or state governments.


30 posted on 06/26/2024 5:45:47 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (“Ain't it funny how the night moves … when you just don't seem to have as much to lose.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

No offense, but I was here in those rough-and-tumble days and I insisted back then that some lisping midget from New York City was never going to be elected President of the United States.


31 posted on 06/26/2024 5:47:37 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (“Ain't it funny how the night moves … when you just don't seem to have as much to lose.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Well, I like to play the part of the “Pamphleteer.” I copy the articles I find here on FR, and other places, and drop them into shopping carts. I place them on the shelves at the stores and give them out at the gas station. I also do a lot of memes. Pookie's toons are wonderful.!

I go through a lot of paper and ink over a few months, but I really enjoy doing it. :)

They may have all sorts ways to shut out the conversation but, where's a will, there's a way...

You know, George Orwell was also known to pamphleteer for causes important to him.

32 posted on 06/26/2024 6:03:55 PM PDT by unread (I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC..!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I disagree with the author. The censorship was egregious but the plaintiffs in this case had no cause of action against the U.S. government. THEY were not censored; FACEBOOK was ... which means Facebook has the legal standing to sue the government over a First Amendment violation, not ordinary citizens or state governments.

You couldn't be more wrong. I suggest you read Alito's dissent. You fundamentally misunderstand what this case was about.

33 posted on 06/26/2024 6:10:41 PM PDT by DSH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

“who would stand athwart the tyranny of the administrative state”

The J6 fiasco clued me in on these champions.

Yeah... we got a problem, that’s for sure.

You gotta wonder how the whole apparatus became infested with vermin so completely and quickly. How does that happen?

Obviously it can, because it did. Now to figure out the how.


34 posted on 06/26/2024 6:25:25 PM PDT by Sarcazmo (I live by the Golden Rule. As applied by others; I'm not selfish.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DSH
I did read Alito's dissent, and I think he is 100% correct on the facts and 100% wrong on the law.

Note how much time and text he devotes to the alleged "harms" suffered by the plaintiffs in the case. For one thing, the claims of harm were specious at best. More importantly ... to the extent any of these people suffered any harm at all, their legal recourse would be against Facebook, not the U.S. government. (NOTE: Facebook would then have a strong incentive to pursue a third-party claim against the U.S. government in its defense against a lawsuit by these plaintiffs.)

The most compelling point in the court's decision is this (the highlighted item is mine):

The plaintiffs claim standing based on the "direct censorship" of their own speech as well as their "right to listen" to others who faced social-media censorship. Notably, both theories depend on the platform's actions -- yet the plaintiffs do not seek to enjoin the platforms from restricting any posts or accounts.

I'm surprised this case even made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, with this crippling flaw in it.

35 posted on 06/26/2024 6:27:15 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (“Ain't it funny how the night moves … when you just don't seem to have as much to lose.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

(Can anyone doubt that if my guy had been nominated instead of McCain, that we would have had Obama as a footnote to history?)

What went wrong, Jim?


36 posted on 06/26/2024 6:28:07 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man (The last two wen't balloons. One was a cylindrical objects Trump is being given the Alex Jones tr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

You were right Jim, I like Rudy better than John.


37 posted on 06/26/2024 6:28:44 PM PDT by Sarcazmo (I live by the Golden Rule. As applied by others; I'm not selfish.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: glorgau

Isn’t that something?

These guys really get the good jobs for some reason. Wasn’t the CEO of Bud Light also from the IC?


38 posted on 06/26/2024 6:31:58 PM PDT by Sarcazmo (I live by the Golden Rule. As applied by others; I'm not selfish.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

The points are valid.

In essence they pointed the fingers at the platforms.

Unf the reality is that they were coerced by the govt.

Doughty found that water is indeed wet, had SCOTUS not heard this appeal, his ruling stands.


39 posted on 06/26/2024 6:35:51 PM PDT by Freest Republican (There is no tyranny that cannot be justified by imbeciles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

Please help fund Freeper page with a generous donation.

Monthly would be great.

Let’s show our appreciation for this conservative sight. No pop ups like other sites.

Let’s make this a wrap, ok???


40 posted on 06/26/2024 7:15:15 PM PDT by WaterWeWaitinFor (Pray for the safety of President Trump, his family, and We The People. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson