6-3 majority rule in Murthy v. Missouri that neither the states nor other respondents had standing under Article III, reversing the Fifth Circuit decision.
When Judges have legal immunity and a job for life (as they do in the supreme court), they are no longer "legally" accountable to anyone.
"Legal Immunity" means that judges are only accountable illegaly. That means criminals and murderers are the only elements of society that hold any sway over judges. This makes the judiciary an extension of organized crime, accountable only to the biggest criminal of the day.
SCOTUS never like multi-state suits and always take the cowardly route. They did the same, as I recall, with the Texas suit that other states were circumventing the Constitution by changing voting rules. Recent analysis showed that had there been no massive mail in voting, Biden would not have won, so IMO SCOTUS gave us this president. Now they are ensuring many don't get full information so we get him or his replacement in the next election.
Well, that's a frightening thought. I've known some honest, principled local judges. Seems to me that these days, the higher a judge goes in the judicial system, the more likely they are to be "held accountable" by crooks and the more likely they are to become corrupt.
Right. And corrosion of the 1st Amendment causes direct and immediate injury to the rights and freedom of every single American. The decision attacks the very basis of citizen sovereignty, which is the foundation of the US and the Constitution.
Amy Barrett and the rest could not have more thoroughly failed to uphold their oath.
It stunned me! To see and feel these forces of darkness all around that are eroding so many aspects of America, brings on a sickening feeling. The whole statement from Amy Coney Barrett just makes no sense to me. We all have standing and so many of us have lost freedoms and so many have been injured or worse. Hard to know if this is ignorance or malice on the majority of the courts part.
The USA has turned away from the Lord en masse. We now have to see the result. Play with fire and eventually you will get burned. “1 Corinthians 1:8-For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” Remain in good cheer Brothers and Sisters. Prophecy must be fulfilled. Come Lord Jesus and bring the new heavens and the new earth, Amen.
Maybe a free market response would solve the problem. Frequent only those social media sites that promise to never censor speech at the request of the government without telling the user what they have done, why they did it, and where they can read the forbidden information.
I don't believe Barrett is saying no harm was done. She is saying that the harm is not traceable from the plaintiffs to the defendants.
In other words:
1. There is evidence that the government coerced social media companies to censor.
2. There is evidence that the plaintiffs were censored by the social media companies.
3. BUT there is no evidence that the government coerced the social media companies to specifically censor these plaintiffs.
I believe Berenson v. Biden is where we can win. Alex Berenson has evidence that the government specifically asked social media companies to censor him. Hopefully it's enough to show coercion as well.
It doesn't matter to whom the harm is traceable. That's a BS con job excuse, a misinterpretation of not just the integrity of the premise of the constitution, but of sanity and common sense. SCOTUS has no right or authority to undermine that which the constitution/bill of rights clearly states as foundational principles; and there was clear violation of first amendment protection. It doesn't matter who was effected -- it happened. There are no "exceptions" to protecting the God-given first amendment, or any of the other God-given protected rights, which are clearly spelled out. This massaging, manipulation, and "interpretation" of semantics and esoteric nonsense is double talk... flat-out bull sh*t. Did this censorship action violate the constitution is the only relevant consideration. Period. If we're going to play games about who was or wasn't harmed by a constitutional violation, and if it's not a specifically-targeted person bringing the case of the violation, then most of the "laws" on the books are irrelevant and needn't be followed by anyone. In this case, the person(s) bringing the case represents WeThePeople and the integrity of the foundational rule of law, not who was or wasn't harmed; and the g0vt is guilty of doing what they were accused of doing and were in violation of everyone's constitutional rights.
"This massaging, manipulation, and "interpretation" of semantics and esoteric nonsense is double talk... flat-out bull sh*t."
It's sophistry: ie, Who can win the argument.
Reminds me very much of what Chief Justice Roberts did to us in his O'Care ruling. In that case he pulled rabbits out of a hat to please the "administration." (Good manners preclude me from saying more.)
Liz, the decision makes a reference to the precedent case establishing the need for standing. That precedent relies on a particular interpretation of Article III.
Now, if you believe it's a slam dunk case to overturn such precedent, I guess you would be free to sue.
Another scam excuse. Precedent? How convenient "precedent" is only relevant when it's used to circumvent upholding the letter of the law in favor of pandering to the cartel babylon puppetmasters who are manipulating the outcome for the sole purpose of using irrelevant excuses to bypass upholding the sanctity of the constitution and the rights it provides to ALL citizens, not a handful of those usurping the constitution for the purpose of destroying the rule of law. And several "precedents" are bastardizations of the law but maintain their "alleged relevance" so that further circumvention of the law is possible, to be twisted at whim, to continue circumventing the law. It's the same type of convoluted, twisted, blatant wrong and insane pretexts that are being used with the gender BS... where now a court is saying the constitution didn't define the word "sex". Give me a break. These are the types of convoluted crap shows and pretend "loopholes" put in place for the sole purpose of NOT HAVING TO follow rule of law. It's unacceptable and inexcusable, by any definition or reason.
But is Berenson's complaint "traceable?" In other words, did the social media platform censor content before Biden's direct coercion campaign? If so, Berenson won't win.
I have a rule for myself that I don't call names online, but dang it's hard to not call those six justices a whole list of the worst names I can think of.
But not for long, because I'm a stubborn old coot.
Early in the COVID mess, I learned a nice way to thwart some of Facebook's censorship. In California, the Facebook page of a government agency is considered "public record." This means that if the page allows comments by members of the public, the agency cannot delete comments and cannot ban a member of the public from commenting.
So I spent a lot of time on my county's Public Health Department page. Any time the PHD posted bovine manure about COVID or spikeshots, I countered it. I was always polite, never called names (except to call one or two California politicians "puppets"), and backed up almost everything I said with links to studies, links to statements by doctors/scientists, etc.
A wonderful touch was that Facebook soon decided I was a "Top Fan" of my county's Public Health Department and labeled everything I posted with that nice little tag.
In retrospect, I should posted my comments on the Facebook pages of the Public Health Departments of all of California's most populous counties . . . Something to look forward to when the next plandemic is launched, eh?
If you live in a different state, find out if your state has a similar law stating that Facebook pages of public agencies are "public record." If yes, I hope you will take full advantage of that wonderful fact.
That's fab, stubborn old coot. In the state Constitution of New Hampshire we find, Article 8: "any individual taxpayer eligible to vote in the State, shall have standing to petition the Superior Court to declare whether the State or political subdivision in which the taxpayer resides has spent, or has approved spending, public funds in violation of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision. In such a case, the taxpayer shall not have to demonstrate that his or her personal rights were impaired or prejudiced beyond his or her status as a taxpayer."
The Court knows which way the wind blows and finds accordingly. Gutless wonders me thinks these black robbed charlatans. They just don't want to wake up dead with a pillow over their face.
Absolutely they know that many countries are cracking down on free speech. This went viral during Covid, but I saw it happening during Russia gate when the government brought back the un American activists like what happened in the McCarthy era. Don’t agree with Hillary and you’re a Russian asset.
This is nothing compared to their decision to refuse to hear Trump's evidence of the FRAUD/CHEAT 2020 Elections when they accept the order from the Demonic U.N. Nazi Uniparty to cover and legitimize the FRAUD/CHEAT ELECTIONS OF 2024 as well as WWIII Conventional War following.
The "Supremes" ruled that Texas didn't have standing to object to cheating in other states, cheating that obviously negated the value of every pro-Trump vote by Texans. Then the mainstream media, and even some conservatives who should know better, claimed that courts who denied standing, and thus never looked at evidence, found no evidence of widespread cheating that would have changed the outcome. Alice in Wonderland.
Ruling based on lack of standing is cowardly but it might have been worse had they actually examined the case. The 6 probably would have agreed with Biden that the Federal Govt. has 1st Amendment rights.
Barrett wasn’t vetted enough. Dont know how Kavanaugh has become so traitorous after all DJT did for him. Probably family threatened. This Supreme Court stinks. Worst in my lifetime! Thank God for Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch(sp?)
Big brother Biden's Ministry of Propaganda gets the greenlight from the Supreme Court... A case could be made for criminal negligence in the execution of the Supreme Court's duty to protect the First Amendment.. Just the latest example of how to excruciate over the letter of the law in complete defiance of the spirit of the law.. Pathetic to think this is our highest court...
A cowardly deflection. Every single person and state in the union has standing when it comes to the 1st Amendment.
EVERY SINGLE PERSON AND STATE IN THE UNION HAS STANDING WHEN IT COMES TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
Wish I could give your comment a million "Likes."
When Judges have legal immunity and a job for life (as they do in the supreme court), they are no longer "legally" accountable to anyone.
"Legal Immunity" means that judges are only accountable illegaly. That means criminals and murderers are the only elements of society that hold any sway over judges. This makes the judiciary an extension of organized crime, accountable only to the biggest criminal of the day.
https://danielnagase.substack.com/p/a-criminal-surprise
SCOTUS never like multi-state suits and always take the cowardly route. They did the same, as I recall, with the Texas suit that other states were circumventing the Constitution by changing voting rules. Recent analysis showed that had there been no massive mail in voting, Biden would not have won, so IMO SCOTUS gave us this president. Now they are ensuring many don't get full information so we get him or his replacement in the next election.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/ag-paxton-sues-battleground-states-unconstitutional-changes-2020-election-laws
Well, that's a frightening thought. I've known some honest, principled local judges. Seems to me that these days, the higher a judge goes in the judicial system, the more likely they are to be "held accountable" by crooks and the more likely they are to become corrupt.
Right. And corrosion of the 1st Amendment causes direct and immediate injury to the rights and freedom of every single American. The decision attacks the very basis of citizen sovereignty, which is the foundation of the US and the Constitution.
Amy Barrett and the rest could not have more thoroughly failed to uphold their oath.
It stunned me! To see and feel these forces of darkness all around that are eroding so many aspects of America, brings on a sickening feeling. The whole statement from Amy Coney Barrett just makes no sense to me. We all have standing and so many of us have lost freedoms and so many have been injured or worse. Hard to know if this is ignorance or malice on the majority of the courts part.
I’m guessing it’s malice. The court has one job: uphold the constitution. Period.
No need to guess. We need to believe what our eyes show us. It's malice... and an incomprehensible level of corruption.
My feelings exactly!!
The USA has turned away from the Lord en masse. We now have to see the result. Play with fire and eventually you will get burned. “1 Corinthians 1:8-For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” Remain in good cheer Brothers and Sisters. Prophecy must be fulfilled. Come Lord Jesus and bring the new heavens and the new earth, Amen.
Maybe a free market response would solve the problem. Frequent only those social media sites that promise to never censor speech at the request of the government without telling the user what they have done, why they did it, and where they can read the forbidden information.
Isn't this fascism: when the private sector and the government hold hands to shaft the people?
The best bet for no censorship is currently "X" right? I think that's the only place to freely share ideas right?
With the Totalitarian treatment I got from F_ckbook like he11 I'll ever communicate there again!
Like SwarmAcademy.ai which will be a place for people to assemble to solve problems in high trust groups using collective intelligence systems
F*ck these morons! Worst court in my 70 years! No scholarship!
It’s not a regrettable decision. For those who read, speak and understand the English language, it is an act of treason and support of tyranny.
Agreed.
Exactly.
I don't believe Barrett is saying no harm was done. She is saying that the harm is not traceable from the plaintiffs to the defendants.
In other words:
1. There is evidence that the government coerced social media companies to censor.
2. There is evidence that the plaintiffs were censored by the social media companies.
3. BUT there is no evidence that the government coerced the social media companies to specifically censor these plaintiffs.
I believe Berenson v. Biden is where we can win. Alex Berenson has evidence that the government specifically asked social media companies to censor him. Hopefully it's enough to show coercion as well.
It doesn't matter to whom the harm is traceable. That's a BS con job excuse, a misinterpretation of not just the integrity of the premise of the constitution, but of sanity and common sense. SCOTUS has no right or authority to undermine that which the constitution/bill of rights clearly states as foundational principles; and there was clear violation of first amendment protection. It doesn't matter who was effected -- it happened. There are no "exceptions" to protecting the God-given first amendment, or any of the other God-given protected rights, which are clearly spelled out. This massaging, manipulation, and "interpretation" of semantics and esoteric nonsense is double talk... flat-out bull sh*t. Did this censorship action violate the constitution is the only relevant consideration. Period. If we're going to play games about who was or wasn't harmed by a constitutional violation, and if it's not a specifically-targeted person bringing the case of the violation, then most of the "laws" on the books are irrelevant and needn't be followed by anyone. In this case, the person(s) bringing the case represents WeThePeople and the integrity of the foundational rule of law, not who was or wasn't harmed; and the g0vt is guilty of doing what they were accused of doing and were in violation of everyone's constitutional rights.
"This massaging, manipulation, and "interpretation" of semantics and esoteric nonsense is double talk... flat-out bull sh*t."
It's sophistry: ie, Who can win the argument.
Reminds me very much of what Chief Justice Roberts did to us in his O'Care ruling. In that case he pulled rabbits out of a hat to please the "administration." (Good manners preclude me from saying more.)
Liz, the decision makes a reference to the precedent case establishing the need for standing. That precedent relies on a particular interpretation of Article III.
Now, if you believe it's a slam dunk case to overturn such precedent, I guess you would be free to sue.
Another scam excuse. Precedent? How convenient "precedent" is only relevant when it's used to circumvent upholding the letter of the law in favor of pandering to the cartel babylon puppetmasters who are manipulating the outcome for the sole purpose of using irrelevant excuses to bypass upholding the sanctity of the constitution and the rights it provides to ALL citizens, not a handful of those usurping the constitution for the purpose of destroying the rule of law. And several "precedents" are bastardizations of the law but maintain their "alleged relevance" so that further circumvention of the law is possible, to be twisted at whim, to continue circumventing the law. It's the same type of convoluted, twisted, blatant wrong and insane pretexts that are being used with the gender BS... where now a court is saying the constitution didn't define the word "sex". Give me a break. These are the types of convoluted crap shows and pretend "loopholes" put in place for the sole purpose of NOT HAVING TO follow rule of law. It's unacceptable and inexcusable, by any definition or reason.
But is Berenson's complaint "traceable?" In other words, did the social media platform censor content before Biden's direct coercion campaign? If so, Berenson won't win.
Check out Alex Berenson's X feed. This is being discussed right now.
Particularly this: https://x.com/AlexBerenson/status/1806003086311239746/photo/1
Thanks. Hope you are right.
I hate it when SCOTUS is so smart that, they remind me of one of my favorite Charles Dickens quotes, “The law is an ass. An idiot."
I have a rule for myself that I don't call names online, but dang it's hard to not call those six justices a whole list of the worst names I can think of.
This Supreme Court decision leaves me speechless.
But not for long, because I'm a stubborn old coot.
Early in the COVID mess, I learned a nice way to thwart some of Facebook's censorship. In California, the Facebook page of a government agency is considered "public record." This means that if the page allows comments by members of the public, the agency cannot delete comments and cannot ban a member of the public from commenting.
So I spent a lot of time on my county's Public Health Department page. Any time the PHD posted bovine manure about COVID or spikeshots, I countered it. I was always polite, never called names (except to call one or two California politicians "puppets"), and backed up almost everything I said with links to studies, links to statements by doctors/scientists, etc.
A wonderful touch was that Facebook soon decided I was a "Top Fan" of my county's Public Health Department and labeled everything I posted with that nice little tag.
In retrospect, I should posted my comments on the Facebook pages of the Public Health Departments of all of California's most populous counties . . . Something to look forward to when the next plandemic is launched, eh?
If you live in a different state, find out if your state has a similar law stating that Facebook pages of public agencies are "public record." If yes, I hope you will take full advantage of that wonderful fact.
That's fab, stubborn old coot. In the state Constitution of New Hampshire we find, Article 8: "any individual taxpayer eligible to vote in the State, shall have standing to petition the Superior Court to declare whether the State or political subdivision in which the taxpayer resides has spent, or has approved spending, public funds in violation of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision. In such a case, the taxpayer shall not have to demonstrate that his or her personal rights were impaired or prejudiced beyond his or her status as a taxpayer."
Excellent suggestion. I agree that ppl will listen better with truthfulness posted respectfully backed by documentation. Thank you!
Rand Paul proposed legislation that would make government coercion of social media illegal.. Support the Free Speech Protection Act!
The Court knows which way the wind blows and finds accordingly. Gutless wonders me thinks these black robbed charlatans. They just don't want to wake up dead with a pillow over their face.
Absolutely they know that many countries are cracking down on free speech. This went viral during Covid, but I saw it happening during Russia gate when the government brought back the un American activists like what happened in the McCarthy era. Don’t agree with Hillary and you’re a Russian asset.
McCarthy is not to be disparaged, nor his work.
Has it occurred to you that the commies (owners of our media, etc) have tarnished his name so his work would be dismissed?
"Blacklisted By History" by M. Stanton Evans. Give it a look.
Agree. Fear of being killed.
Your post is downright poetic. And probably "too true."
Are ewe referring to a previous member of The Brethren?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-death-conspiracy-theories-texas-ranch-owner-clarifies/
I hope, damn PRAY this gets re-filed, with exact details of personal harm, if that’s what these scoundrel need!!
Horrific ruling!!!!
This is nothing compared to their decision to refuse to hear Trump's evidence of the FRAUD/CHEAT 2020 Elections when they accept the order from the Demonic U.N. Nazi Uniparty to cover and legitimize the FRAUD/CHEAT ELECTIONS OF 2024 as well as WWIII Conventional War following.
The "Supremes" ruled that Texas didn't have standing to object to cheating in other states, cheating that obviously negated the value of every pro-Trump vote by Texans. Then the mainstream media, and even some conservatives who should know better, claimed that courts who denied standing, and thus never looked at evidence, found no evidence of widespread cheating that would have changed the outcome. Alice in Wonderland.
Alice-in-Wonderland psy0p indeed.
It's not going to fly again...
And, it's best for this war to be brought into the primacy of this time
as their technology is NOT yet perfected and enough bugs exist to
allow another PATRIOT VICTORY as in and before WWII.
God only knows what would happen should the U.S. Military
be led by PATRIOTS LOYAL TO THE CONSTITUTION DECIDING TO WIN
instead of harassing and torturing innocents for The Black Nobility's
aim at the One/New World Police State.
Captured....
And corrupt. Very, very corrupt. Bought-and-paid-for corrupt... aka treason.
What an absolute travesty.
Ruling based on lack of standing is cowardly but it might have been worse had they actually examined the case. The 6 probably would have agreed with Biden that the Federal Govt. has 1st Amendment rights.
Barrett wasn’t vetted enough. Dont know how Kavanaugh has become so traitorous after all DJT did for him. Probably family threatened. This Supreme Court stinks. Worst in my lifetime! Thank God for Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch(sp?)
Damn. Never thought I'd have to thank God for Thomas. Eegad.
😮brilliant man. Maybe, Watch documentary about him!
Big brother Biden's Ministry of Propaganda gets the greenlight from the Supreme Court... A case could be made for criminal negligence in the execution of the Supreme Court's duty to protect the First Amendment.. Just the latest example of how to excruciate over the letter of the law in complete defiance of the spirit of the law.. Pathetic to think this is our highest court...