daz28 Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 Thank God the handmaiden and kegstand Brett still require EVIDENCE. Read Alito's dissent, and tell me he's not part of the GQP cult, who are fine with handing out rulings based on their feelings. The government can suggest anything they want as long as they aren't pressuring anyone to act on their behalf. Now all we need is someone to bring a case up when the GQP openly threatens social media companies for not operating in ways that support them. THAT is your proof of ACTUAL coercion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roundybout Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said: 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. Sorry, you whiny prick, you have no standing and you can’t make ***** up without paying the consequences. Private companies can do what they wish. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 Just now, daz28 said: Thank God the handmaiden and kegstand Brett still require EVIDENCE. Read Alito's dissent, and tell me he's not part of the GQP cult, who are fine with handing out rulings based on their feelings. The government can suggest anything they want as long as they aren't pressuring anyone to act on their behalf. Now all we need is someone to bring a case up when the GQP openly threatens social media companies for not operating in ways that support them. THAT is your proof of ACTUAL coercion. Alito also masterminded Dobbs by raising - on his own - an issue that wasn't even raised by the petitioner. He has no problem manufacturing standing just so he can make sure he can change the law in his own likeness. Thomas (say what you will about him) pays at least some regard to the formal rules of the Court. Those rules are important because they enforce separation of powers and avoid creating a Super Legislature in the Supreme Court. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said: 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. Quite the opposite actually. The court ruled that he failed to prove there was pressure and coercion. Just curious if there was any pressure when trump, as president, calls Fox news to complain about what they were airing????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 (edited) Here's what the REAL government's hands on people's private companies looks like: Sept. 29, 2023, 9:33 AM EDT / Updated Sept. 29, 2023, 10:08 AM EDT By Lawrence Hurley WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday waded into the divisive issue of online censorship by agreeing to decide the constitutionality of laws in Florida and Texas that seek to prevent social media companies from banning users for contentious rhetoric. The laws, backed by Republicans, have been characterized by their supporters as hitting back at alleged censorship of conservative speech by liberal-leaning social media companies, although the Supreme Court’s ruling could have broader impacts. How can the government stop CeNsOrShIp? Easy, by creating laws that tell people how to run their businesses. If you want your Nazi rhetoric heard, then go ahead and elect them, but don't tell others they have to support your nazi rhetoric. If you don't have to bake a cake for gays, then why should you have to let Nazis post on your board? 14 minutes ago, daz28 said: Quite the opposite actually. The court ruled that he failed to prove there was pressure and coercion. Just curious if there was any pressure when trump, as president, calls Fox news to complain about what they were airing????? I remember a conversion with "Brad" about how if he didn't find 11k votes that a lot of people would be unhappy, and that it may even be illegal. Not coercion at all, right? Yet another "perfect phone call". Edited June 26 by daz28 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 Interesting... Supreme Court set to allow abortions in medical emergencies, briefly-published opinion shows Draft opinion was briefly posted to the court’s website Wednesday morning The Supreme Court is poised to allow abortions in medical emergencies, an opinion briefly published on the court’s website and obtained by BloombergLaw revealed. Wednesday morning, a draft opinion in the consolidated cases Moyle v US and US v Idaho was published as the court issued two other opinions but quickly removed. The opinion – which is not final – the court will reinstate a lower court ruling that ensured hospitals in Idaho provide abortions in emergency medical situations but decline to issue a formal ruling in the dispute. The majority will instead dismiss the case as improvidently granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 1 minute ago, ChiGoose said: Interesting... Supreme Court set to allow abortions in medical emergencies, briefly-published opinion shows Draft opinion was briefly posted to the court’s website Wednesday morning The Supreme Court is poised to allow abortions in medical emergencies, an opinion briefly published on the court’s website and obtained by BloombergLaw revealed. Wednesday morning, a draft opinion in the consolidated cases Moyle v US and US v Idaho was published as the court issued two other opinions but quickly removed. The opinion – which is not final – the court will reinstate a lower court ruling that ensured hospitals in Idaho provide abortions in emergency medical situations but decline to issue a formal ruling in the dispute. The majority will instead dismiss the case as improvidently granted. Good. The first step towards recognizing bodily autonomy. Now try to imagine the right wing hacks on the court trying to explain why you should have to wait for the possible life-threatening emergency to happen before you can get what would have been the lifesaving procedure prior to it happening. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 1 minute ago, ChiGoose said: Interesting... Supreme Court set to allow abortions in medical emergencies, briefly-published opinion shows Draft opinion was briefly posted to the court’s website Wednesday morning The Supreme Court is poised to allow abortions in medical emergencies, an opinion briefly published on the court’s website and obtained by BloombergLaw revealed. Wednesday morning, a draft opinion in the consolidated cases Moyle v US and US v Idaho was published as the court issued two other opinions but quickly removed. The opinion – which is not final – the court will reinstate a lower court ruling that ensured hospitals in Idaho provide abortions in emergency medical situations but decline to issue a formal ruling in the dispute. The majority will instead dismiss the case as improvidently granted. Very interesting, and it actually sounds like a legitimate error (uploaded the wrong file?). By the way, the abortion decisions are driving us right over the new Dred Scott cliff. Thousands and thousands of Texas women are going to NM to have abortions. Texas law allows any person to bring a case against any person in Texas who facilitates an abortion contrary to Texas law. Like Dred Scott, does fleeing to a "free [abortion] state" insulate you (and the person driving you, paying for your gas, etc.?) from liability? We also have the federal/state issues like this one, and soon the banning of medication abortion access. Justice Alito, you just opened a really dangerous can of worms ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 7 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Very interesting, and it actually sounds like a legitimate error (uploaded the wrong file?). By the way, the abortion decisions are driving us right over the new Dred Scott cliff. Thousands and thousands of Texas women are going to NM to have abortions. Texas law allows any person to bring a case against any person in Texas who facilitates an abortion contrary to Texas law. Like Dred Scott, does fleeing to a "free [abortion] state" insulate you (and the person driving you, paying for your gas, etc.?) from liability? We also have the federal/state issues like this one, and soon the banning of medication abortion access. Justice Alito, you just opened a really dangerous can of worms ... But he assured us he was settling the issue by leaving it to the states! Who could have possibly predicted this chaos? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 (edited) 7 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Very interesting, and it actually sounds like a legitimate error (uploaded the wrong file?). By the way, the abortion decisions are driving us right over the new Dred Scott cliff. Thousands and thousands of Texas women are going to NM to have abortions. Texas law allows any person to bring a case against any person in Texas who facilitates an abortion contrary to Texas law. Like Dred Scott, does fleeing to a "free [abortion] state" insulate you (and the person driving you, paying for your gas, etc.?) from liability? We also have the federal/state issues like this one, and soon the banning of medication abortion access. Justice Alito, you just opened a really dangerous can of worms ... So states rights only when they're convenient. LOL. I'm actually loving that they are bringing all their rhetoric to the place where the truth kills it. They were betting that their hand-picked justices would give them everything they wanted, but thank God they aren't. So far I'm loving the handmaiden. Edited June 26 by daz28 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roundybout Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: But he assured us he was settling the issue by leaving it to the states! Who could have possibly predicted this chaos? Everyone who realized that “states rights” are a sham when it comes to issues that affect the entire country. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 2 minutes ago, Roundybout said: Everyone who realized that “states rights” are a sham when it comes to issues that affect the entire country. Everyone who realized what state right it was that they wanted, which led to the Civil War. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 ^^^^^^^^^^ tools hate states rights as much as individual. Basic statistics. Ones representation at the local level is much higher than state. ones representation at the state level is much higher than the FEDERAL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 7 minutes ago, Roundybout said: Everyone who realized that “states rights” are a sham when it comes to issues that affect the entire country. You don't understand. It's "State's rights so long as the states do the thing we want them to" 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 One has more representation at the local level, then state, them federal. And the msm parrots are always on the side of the federal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 2 hours ago, daz28 said: Good. The first step towards recognizing bodily autonomy. Mask up 2 hours ago, daz28 said: Now try to imagine the right wing hacks on the court trying to explain why you should have to wait for the possible life-threatening emergency to happen before you can get what would have been the lifesaving procedure prior to it happening. Tell that to the baby you’ll be killing. Also, there are none that exist that require aborting your baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotSHO Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 Nothing gets humans fired up more than talking about killing babies. Good thing you weren't killed preemptively, so you now have the ability to to B word one way or the other on the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 5 hours ago, Big Blitz said: Mask up Tell that to the baby you’ll be killing. Also, there are none that exist that require aborting your baby. It's kind of humorous that you believe people have the right to spread deadly infectious diseases to other living persons freely, yet are for protecting fetuses. Do you think it should be a crime to knowingly pass AIDS to another? 3 hours ago, ScotSHO said: Nothing gets humans fired up more than talking about killing babies. Good thing you weren't killed preemptively, so you now have the ability to to B word one way or the other on the debate. Almost all people are against killing babies, but you want to equate that to aborting a fetus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotSHO Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 9 hours ago, daz28 said: Almost all people are against killing babies, but you want to equate that to aborting a fetus. So you weren't a fetus at one point? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts