Posted on 06/30/2024 5:27:14 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
WASHINGTON — Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared to lose patience last week with the right-wing narrative that the Biden administration had unlawfully coerced social media companies to remove politically charged content.
In authoring the Supreme Court’s ruling that threw out a lawsuit brought by Republican-led states and several disgruntled social media users, Barrett took aim at the flimsy nature of the claims, the lower courts that indulged them — and several of her conservative colleagues.
While Barrett forensically pointed out how the plaintiffs had failed to substantiate their allegations that content moderation decisions were unlawfully influenced by the Biden administration and criticized a federal judge for reaching conclusions that were “clearly erroneous,” fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito appeared to view the case through a more ideological lens.
He wrote a dissenting opinion joined by two other conservatives, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch, in which he credited the claims made by the plaintiffs and concluded that the Biden administration’s actions were “blatantly unconstitutional.”
Barrett sniped back at Alito in a series of lengthy footnotes, including one in which she said that in an effort to reach the merits of the case he “draws links” between government conduct and content moderation decisions that the plaintiffs themselves did not make.
The ruling and several other recent cases illustrate how Barrett — one of former President Donald Trump’s three appointees to the nine-justice court — is at times unwilling to indulge the more extreme arguments that reach the court. She joined the court at a tumultuous time, replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg following the liberal icon's death in September 2020 as Republicans rushed to fill the seat just weeks before Trump’s election loss.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Yep
Franklin Graham
Politics should have zero bearing on ANY court decision, from municipal to Supreme. FACTS and LAW, period!
But the media and uniparty canned that notion
Anyone recall her?
Janice Rogers Brown
What made it such a ludicrous case was that the plaintiffs were third parties that would have an enormous burden of proof in any civil lawsuit. And the FIRST burden of proof (which was the only point of contention in this particular Supreme Court decision) was that they'd have to demonstrate that they were actually harmed by the defendant's actions even though the defendant never acted directly against them.
The SCOTUS case summary captures the flaw perfectly in just a couple of sentences (the bold text is my emphasis):
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.
This may be a rare case where Alito was 100% correct on the facts but 100% wrong on the law.
Another case of someone being pissed off at any justice or politician who doesn’t agree with them 100 percent of the time.
It’s just as bad on the left. Celebrate the jurist or politician when they do what you like, damn them when they do something they don’t like.
Looks like the leftist media is promoting her as another Sandra Day O’Connor. Why is it that it is always the Justices on the right that are the traitors?
The claim that Barret is a conservative always TICKS me off. There is nothing conservative about her. In fact she about as leftist as they come. It is very rare that she does not vote with the left.
Mark Levin says she has gone’haywire” and bears watching.
Interesting suggestion. Very rooted. Er, “based” as they say today.
I was thinking John Eastman.
That should explode a thousand heads.
He was on a Trump short list I believe but Mitch the Traitor said no, too “extweeme”. Or something.
I suspect that there was a bit of horse-trading going with the recent rulings between Barrett and Jackson. They are both the newest Justices and they both made surprising joins with the majority on certain opinions.
At this point, I'm betting that Roberts made them switch certain votes so that the Court could appear moderate and not have the two newest Justices automatically labeled as being in one corner or the other.
We'll see, but that's where I am right now.
-PJ
Plausible.
She’s supposed to make her decisions based on the U.S. Constitution, not by leaning right or left.
How can a person in power in the workplace be accused of sexual harassment simply because they are a person’s superior with power over them, yet the US Goverment (FBI, DOJ, CIA, IRS etc.) suggests censoring political opposition and it doesn’t have the same effect?
As one lawyer put it, Barrett’s opinions are reasoned like a law professor rather than a jurist. Like her opinions are supposed to teach something rather than mean something. I concur.
👊
Indeed or Mike Davis
You must be referring to CA Judge Janice Rogers.
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.