K D Posted June 26 Posted June 26 6 minutes ago, B-Man said: I assume (dangerous I know) that they are waiting till Friday to release the "Immunity" ruling, so as to not effect the debate. We'll see. Trump should have prosecuted Hillary and hopefully he prosecutes Joe. Then maybe the lefties will see that this is not something we want or need in politics. I don't know what the answer is. Not absolute immunity but also not going after political opponents over ticky tack stuff 1 1
Big Blitz Posted June 26 Posted June 26 How could it be coercive if the companies are ready and willing to do what the government wants?
B-Man Posted June 26 Author Posted June 26 Oh, that "Right Wing" court LOL Here's the first opinion: It is Murthy v. Missouri, by Justice Barrett. The vote is 6-3, with Alito dissenting joined by Thomas and Gorsuch. This is the case about social media "jawboning" -- the government's communications with social media companies during the 2020 election season and COVID-19 pandemic. The court holds that the challengers -- two states and five social-media users -- do not have standing -- that is, a legal right to sue. This is another decision reversing the Fifth Circuit, which held that the communications by governmental officials with social media platforms made the government officials responsible for the platforms' content-moderation decisions. "The Fifth Circuit," Barrett writes, "was wrong to do so." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf 1
Roundybout Posted June 26 Posted June 26 2 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: How could it be coercive if the companies are ready and willing to do what the government wants? Because labeling stupid misinformation BS is not suppressing free speech. Another win for the good guys. This is interesting. SCOTUS ruled that there was no proof of a “quid pro quo” agreement.
Big Blitz Posted June 26 Posted June 26 28 minutes ago, B-Man said: I assume (dangerous I know) that they are waiting till Friday to release the "Immunity" ruling, so as to not effect the debate. We'll see. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted June 26 Posted June 26 3 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: Julie Kelly suddenly worried about the Supreme Court acting in a "political manner" after it took its sweet time on the immunity issues, thereby ensuring that a trial cannot be held until after the election. Which seems to me to be acting in a political manner. 3
The Frankish Reich Posted June 26 Posted June 26 2 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Important to note that this is the result of an unusual alignment of conservative and liberal justices: Barrett wrote the opinion, joined by Roberts, Kavanaugh, Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson. 1
ScotSHO Posted June 26 Posted June 26 11 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Important to note that this is the result of an unusual alignment of conservative and liberal justices: Barrett wrote the opinion, joined by Roberts, Kavanaugh, Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson. Will the rubes out there still call to pack the court?
Big Blitz Posted June 26 Posted June 26 Again, I know the government “talks” to the press all the time about what it reports. This isn’t new. What they did during Covid is absolutely disgusting. But I’m not sure how the government coerced FB or Twitter version 1.0 or Google into doing the censoring it did when those companies were ready and willing to. I don’t see it as a free speech issue - if the company complained the government was pressuring them then we have something. Silicon Valley (minus Twitter version 2.0) are hostile foreign nations that don’t serve American interests - they hate America. And take orders from the CIA that they willingly follow. That’s the issue. Finding a way to destroy their influence is the objective. We can vote these POS in government out and replace them with people ready to dismantle the DMIC. I don’t have to use Facebook or Google - and will absolutely continue to inform people of how evil they are. 1
ChiGoose Posted June 26 Posted June 26 If there’s one thing SCOTUS loves, it’s weakening anti-corruption laws: Be sure to tip your congressman! 1
The Frankish Reich Posted June 26 Posted June 26 Just now, ChiGoose said: If there’s one thing SCOTUS loves, it’s weakening anti-corruption laws: Be sure to tip your congressman! Exactly. It can be hard to establish the quid pro quo unless you have a complete confession. But when we have an official (governmental) act that clearly benefits a specific private party, followed immediately thereafter by a "gift" to the official, it seems obvious that we should infer a that this was, in reality, a bribe. A decision that emboldens corrupt officials.
ChiGoose Posted June 26 Posted June 26 2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Exactly. It can be hard to establish the quid pro quo unless you have a complete confession. But when we have an official (governmental) act that clearly benefits a specific private party, followed immediately thereafter by a "gift" to the official, it seems obvious that we should infer a that this was, in reality, a bribe. A decision that emboldens corrupt officials. It's great news for corrupt officials like Mike Madigan. U.S. Supreme Court accuses feds of 'vague and unfair trap' in ruling that could affect Madigan corruption case "...The high court’s decision to take up the Snyder case interrupted the momentum federal prosecutors here had built through a series of corruption trials in 2023. Not only were a group of onetime Madigan allies set to be sentenced in January for a nearly decade-long scheme to bribe the ex-speaker, but Madigan had been set to go to trial this spring. Instead, Madigan’s trial is now set for October, and sentencing hearings for the four Madigan allies have been put on hold. The corruption conviction of Snyder gave the Supreme Court the opportunity to study a law known as the “federal program bribery” statute. It applies to any state or local government agent who “corruptly solicits … anything of value … intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business” worth $5,000 or more. Madigan’s lawyers have noted that seven of the 23 counts he faces in his indictment are tied to the law in question. It’s involved in five of the counts in the separate case dealing with the four Madigan allies, who include former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore."
Roundybout Posted June 26 Posted June 26 30 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Important to note that this is the result of an unusual alignment of conservative and liberal justices: Barrett wrote the opinion, joined by Roberts, Kavanaugh, Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson. Kavanaugh is all over the place on his rulings it seems
ChiGoose Posted June 26 Posted June 26 4 minutes ago, Roundybout said: Kavanaugh is all over the place on his rulings it seems I think an underreported story here is how nuts the 5th Circuit has gotten. Given the current SCOTUS's disregard for precedent, the 5th Circuit seems to be intentionally trying to push the limits but it's become too much for Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett to abide.
The Frankish Reich Posted June 26 Posted June 26 2 minutes ago, Roundybout said: Kavanaugh is all over the place on his rulings it seems I'm not sure about that. If you look at it purely as "adopted the conservative side/adopted the liberal side," that may be true. But there's kind of another type of analysis, the "institutionalist" vs. "agent of change" axis. We've seen the "agent of change" opinions like Alito's decision in Dobbs, which recognized the half century of precedent in Roe but basically said it doesn't matter since the Roe court was so clearly wrong (in his opinion). Decisions like the social media case today are more on the "institutionalist" side: the Supreme Court rejects the claim on the basis of the plaintiffs not showing a concrete injury directly attributable to government action. In other words, standing. That is a very old fashioned gatekeeping doctrine. I haven't looked at all his decisions by any means, but it seems to me that Roberts and Kavanaugh are very much on the institutionalist side of things; Alito/Thomas/Gorsuch/Sotomayor (too soon to tell with Jackson) on the "agent of change" side of things. Kagan and Barrett seem to tend institutionalist, although clearly on opposite sides of the political spectrum.
LeviF Posted June 26 Posted June 26 The very narrow view on the quid pro quo arrangement is nothing new. From what I’ve read it’s an extremely popular and potent appeal by public officials looking to get corruption-related convictions overturned. Case involving New York somewhere in the process right now regarding our former Lt. Gov. Link for those who subscribe: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/08/nyregion/brian-benjamin-corruption-charges.html District court had directed the indictment for the bribery be dismissed because of the same reasons. Appeals court reversed. 1
BillsFanNC Posted June 26 Posted June 26 My office filed suit against dozens of officials in the federal government to stop the biggest violation of the First Amendment in our nation’s history. The record is clear: the deep state pressured and coerced social media companies to take down truthful speech simply because it was conservative. Today’s ruling does not dispute that. My rallying cry to disappointed Americans is this: Missouri is not done. We are going back to the district court to obtain more discovery in order to root out Joe Biden’s vast censorship enterprise once and for all. 1
Recommended Posts