Supreme Court Rejects Conservative Challenge
To Biden Admin Pressuring Social Media
Companies To Remove Content
Daily Wire,
by
Zach Jewell
Original Article
Posted By: Imright,
6/26/2024 1:05:38 PM
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out a challenge brought by two Republican state officials and conservative social media users challenging the White House’s pressure campaigns on social media companies to remove what the Biden administration deems “misinformation.”
In a 6-3 decision with Justice Amy Coney-Barrett writing the majority opinion, the court ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case, CNN reported. The high court did not rule on any of the First Amendment questions raised by the plaintiffs, which included the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana along with five conservative social media users.
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Lala 6/26/2024 1:13:34 PM (No. 1743942)
Disappointing to say the least. We live in dangerous times.
41 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
rikkitikki 6/26/2024 1:19:27 PM (No. 1743943)
Since every American citizen is being censored by Biden's fascist censorship of social media, the first amendment rights of every American citizen are being violated...so, therefore, every American citizen "has standing" in this issue.
SCOTUS has lost its collective mind.
67 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
DVC 6/26/2024 1:28:16 PM (No. 1743951)
The requirements for 'standing' are that you have to be the injured party. A group suing for some nebulous "those people who were harmed over there" doesn't typically have standing in any court.
Most SCOTUS cases have a name attached. This is the name of the person who was, usually, arrested and perhaps fined or imprisoned, and they are suing because they think it was unconstitutional. THAT person, in jail, or convicted, or denied a CCW license, THEMSELVES, will have standing.
18 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Moritz55 6/26/2024 1:38:58 PM (No. 1743962)
Exactly, #3. This isn’t a “decision,” per se, and I’m sure the issue is far from over.
27 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
mseegal 6/26/2024 1:57:28 PM (No. 1743966)
All the conservative podcsters and website content providers who have been demonetized by Biden influencers may disagree with the Supremes.
22 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
DVC 6/26/2024 2:06:56 PM (No. 1743972)
Re #5....then those podcasters should sue. They would likely have standing.
21 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Venturer 6/26/2024 2:23:02 PM (No. 1743975)
If the Supreme Court doesn't want to get involved or is frightened to get involved. Their excuse is always "STANDING".
25 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Jesuslover54 6/26/2024 2:38:32 PM (No. 1743982)
That will cut both ways.
10 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
MickTurn 6/26/2024 10:33:26 PM (No. 1744153)
SCOTUS against the First Amendment. What the hell is going on?
8 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
mifla 6/27/2024 5:25:10 AM (No. 1744243)
If I use a search engine on a political topic, and get redacted results, am I not the injured party?
12 people like this.
Since they can deputize Google to violate 1st Amendment rights, can they deputize thugs to commit search & seizure? Maybe forced boarding of mercenaries is OK since they’re not “soldiers” to discuss an oldie Goldie.
5 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
skacmar 6/27/2024 7:20:13 AM (No. 1744283)
The liberal media is celebrating this decision as a victory for the Biden administration, showing that they have done nothing wrong. That is just liberal spin. The decision only said that the states did not have "standing" to sue. The decision also noted that the government did influence or pressure companies to censor speech the Biden administration didn't like. Someone with standing can still file suit. The government is not cleared and the issue is not resolved.
8 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Clinger 6/27/2024 7:53:57 AM (No. 1744308)
How about me? Do I have standing? My tax dollars were used to engage private entities to di the governments bidding to censor speech that did not suit the deep state narrative resulting in the election Joe Biden and under his watch he printed enough currency to reduce my actual wealth by at least 25%.
10 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
bpl40 6/27/2024 8:11:12 AM (No. 1744322)
When a blatant unconstitutionality is going scott free because the plaintiff technically 'doesn't have standing', the SCOTUS has to step in. That is the reason it was created in the first place. This was exactly the argument Justices Alito and Thomas made with CJ Roberts in case of the 2020 election.
3 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Firebase 6/27/2024 8:40:30 AM (No. 1744342)
Plaintiff must suffer an injury? Really? As in call a paramedic? How about HARM, as by keeping Biden in office, sustained by their censorship, my bank account is harmed by his reckless spending? How about our security being harmed by open borders, sustained by his censorship? How about stoking wars, sustained by censorship, keeping the instigator in office? An actual injury is just a matter of time, Amy! You are making yourself useless to what is Constitutional, good!
3 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Samsquanch 6/27/2024 9:24:55 AM (No. 1744396)
Barrett is another
3 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
seamusm 6/27/2024 9:38:07 AM (No. 1744405)
The Supreme's ask for an impossible standard of proof to document standing. So we will simply have to win back all the Presidency, House, and Senate in November to force the issue with legislation and policies of our own.
2 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
jimkata 6/27/2024 10:16:28 AM (No. 1744431)
When chief justice Roberts was deciding the Obama Care tax or not, commentators talked how he saw himself as a force to protect the Supreme Court and guide it.Wanted to be figure in the Supreme court history.
With Obama Care decision, Leaks about the abortion ruling ... endangering Kavenaugh, and now this, Roberts will be remembered as the modern version of the Tanney court in his decisions. All wrong morally and ridiculed and reviled today, but doing the proper popular thing at the time to curry favor with those in power.
3 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
NotaBene 6/27/2024 12:10:25 PM (No. 1744524)
Slouching towards Gomorrah. We do not have free speech and have a powerful Gulag system of prisons for the wrong speakers. Let me tell you, the mRNA vaccines were not safe and effective. 6 to 3 !
0 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
danu 6/27/2024 3:09:41 PM (No. 1744625)
and now a word from our sponsors-heroic seers of old:
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
~william butler yeats, the second coming
stay faithful, poets.
the falcons will soon hear the falconer.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Imright"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)