Today the SCOTUS ruled that the two states challenging federal agencies—including the FBI—that are acting as free speech influencers lacked standing to bring the case. Technically, that means that the SCOTUS might entertain challenges to government pressure on free speech if the case were brought by plaintiffs with proper standing. Here’s an articulate presentation of that optimistic take, which disagrees with the idea that the SCOTUS is “allowing censorship” to continue:
Not sure this is such a bad thing. There are all manner of people who can show harm from the actions of Twitter, Facebook , etc . This should be clarion call for all manner of lawsuits to be brought against them. It would be very hard to use Sec 230 to defend censorship so their only real play would be to argue they were coerced, hence giving standing to this case.
As for Trump he should state his intention to create a twitter like messaging service under the US Postal Service.
“Standing”. You can’t sue before the election because you have suffered no harm. You can’t sue after the election because it is a fait accompli. “Standing”. How the courts tell you that you don’t matter.
“justice amy coney barrett (ACB), who appears to be confirming the fears that she was a lackluster and shallow legal mind, plays the safety karen in opposition to basic constitutional sense and application”
Ouch. But true. How she and Kavanaugh can run interference for the Establishment after what said establishment did to them as nominees to the Court is beyond me.
I disagree with Prof. Turley about the court taking an off-ramp. They defined standing like the Bush Administration defined torture: it isn't really torture unless you lose a limb or something. Now, we don't have standing unless we lose a limb or something.
The mainstream media, either out of ignorance, or out of deliberate deceit, or both, are covering this as a win for Biden. Technically, they are correct. Regardless, they spin it to make it a loss for you and for me. As you point out, this was a win for Biden, only on the standing issue.
I understand the issue of having standing to sue. Regarding this case, I agree with you and others that we all have standing when a First Amendment right is under threat.
The Supreme Court, wisely in my opinion, often narrowly tailors their decisions. In this case, they ducked their responsibility.
I agreed with Barrett when she told Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to narrow their decision regarding Colorado keeping Trump off the ballot. I can't find the exact citation but it seems she was referring to Section 2 or 3. They muddied a 9-0 decision and wouldn't have lost anything if they went with the narrow route. With their expanded rationale, no doubt nefarious actors looked at the decision to see if they can influence Congress to not allow Trump to take the presidency should he be elected in November. I seriously doubt the majority of Republicans in Congress would vote to deny seating him, but a small cadre of RINO Republicans could, in a narrowly divided House, work with the Dems to do just that. If this happens, the Supremes potentially gave up the right to check that nefarious shenanigan.
I hope with the Trump immunity decision that they remand it back to the lower court to decide the specific executive privilege claims. That would put the decision out of reach for the election season and render the issue moot if Trump wins in November. Then, the Supremes could kick the can down the road, hoping the Dem's lawlessness is handled where it belongs, by a shocked and disgusted electorate.
OK, the author says there is nothing left to conserve. We need to have a revolution and a re-founding. But a re-founding based on what? What are the first principles? Before we tear down everything shouldn't there be some agreement on what is wrong? And if there is agreement on what is wrong, why do we have to tear down everything just to fix those problems? Sounds like Nihilism to me.
She (the writer) graduated college in 2017 and went straight to Justice Barrett's law school. She's a silly youth with stars in her eyes. It's great to aspire, it is great to be inspired; I as a reader should have applied more discernment than to accept it, just because it is published by someone like The Federalist.
It isn't a matter of relying on the Supreme Court. The goverment was absolutely spanked by the lower courts. The lower courts went out of their way to make a decision that enabled the Supreme Court to back them up. This was an active move by the court.
The doctrine of standing should have no standing on constitutional questions.
All citizens who are not dual citizens and all states should have the right to challenge the constitutionality of the government's actions at any time. Furthermore, the government should be compelled to defend its policies and conduct even if it has ended them, which it often does to preempt encroachments upon its power and authority.
We can quibble over how often the same question can be brought before the court.
I really hate it when the courts allow the government to pull a constitutionally offensive action they've (the government) taken when it's going to court and it appears they (the government) are heading for a well-deserved spanking. I think the courts have the authority to hear the case and apply a decision.
SCOTUS kicked the can down the road, due to Roberts play it safe, by not showing bias (supporting conservatives). Now is not the time to stir things up, with the Trump decision coming.
I view it as cowardice. The left is going to hate you no matter what.
Yeh Ray, I’m pretty much over Roberts and his “play it safe” attitude, I think cowardice sums it up quite nicely! Every since he made that stupid remark about there not being Obama judges or Trump judges, but just “judges” coupled with the “human pretzel” act he did with Obamacare, I’ve lost respect for the Chief Justice. Not to forget the totally ridiculous idea that they never solved the case of who leaked the abortion ruling!! Anyone who believes that also believes that Biden won’t be using any performance enhancing drugs during the debate.
In our local paper, some commenter posted that the "far right" justices, Thomas, Alito and Gorsusch have emasculated Roberts. I responded that as chief, Roberts has limited authority. He can't order a justice to vote a certain way. His big power is to reserve his right to assign the decision or dissent to himself. Even then, he has to hold on to all his votes, at least in the majority, when he narrowly tailors a decision to suit himself.
Like all Republican presidents, Trumps batting average on the Supremes is average. In his defense, he had turncoats named Flake, Murkowski, Collins and others ready to bolt if he chose freely, the way Dems get to put on anyone they want. Biden even said I'm naming a black woman and he did. Of course, he got his wish. Our side always has one hand tied behind our back due to various reasons.
Just like his administration picks that were filtered by the eGOP controlled senate.
Interesting Speaker of the House Ryan was one of the first to get the Steele Dossier, but denied that for years till that fact finally came out in UK court.
Yeh, Paul Ryan definitely gets my vote for the “Bill Barr Sleezeball” award because of his treachery in this matter!! What a lying sack of crap he turned out to be in the end.
It feels like Trump is going to have to lock up political opponents and pressure social media to remove posts opposing him in order for SCOTUS and the left to realize that these Constitutional values have merit and must be upheld. As long as it is just the left that is abusing power, nobody is going to stop them, apparently.
I strongly believe in the rule of law. However, I wonder if you are spot on. Maybe let Trump really go after the media, the Deep State, Congress and give them a taste of what he went through.
I'm not sure if I want to go down that road. I fear if we don't go down that road (assuming Trump wins in 2024), the Dems will be ten times worse the next time they win. If we do give them a taste of their own medicine, how do we have standing to protest when they up the ante in 2028 or 2032?
It's a bad choice we face. I guess I vote for sticking to our principles and lots of prayer.
The hope is that they wouldn't "up the ante" in 2028 if they have experienced the wrath of government abuse of power. Once they have been censored and imprisoned, perhaps the courts will find a backbone and start enforcing the Constitution - or perhaps the left will decide, well, we better get back to following the Constitution because if we don't, we're the ones who end up with the boot stomping on our faces.
I realize this would be a dangerous game because there is a chance that Trump - or more likely someone else (I don't think Trump really has it in him)- would turn into a true dictator and never let any return to Constitutional norms happen. I would never choose this dangerous game but it is the tyrants who decided to censor social media, to force needles in our arms and to imprison political opponents. Those are now the rules and we have to play by them.
If you get into the Octagon with someone who brings a gun and you decide to stick with MMA rules, you're going to get killed. You better grab your own gun and hope that your opponent says "hey, maybe we put down our guns and fight using MMA rules".
You don't fight evil with evil. You fight evil with good. You don't reinforce principles by violating them but by upholding them. You don't validate the law by breaking it.
"Repay no one evil for evil. Have[a] regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. (Romans 12: 17-19)
What I mean is, you can't preserve something by negating it.
I hope so. Because, the Leftists get away with just about everything. Forget the Republicans. They are all the same. The SCJ's are the same. Those 3 Leftists women on the SC would never side with the Conservative SCJ's.
Not sure this is such a bad thing. There are all manner of people who can show harm from the actions of Twitter, Facebook , etc . This should be clarion call for all manner of lawsuits to be brought against them. It would be very hard to use Sec 230 to defend censorship so their only real play would be to argue they were coerced, hence giving standing to this case.
As for Trump he should state his intention to create a twitter like messaging service under the US Postal Service.
“Standing”. You can’t sue before the election because you have suffered no harm. You can’t sue after the election because it is a fait accompli. “Standing”. How the courts tell you that you don’t matter.
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/murthy-v-missouri-ruling
“justice amy coney barrett (ACB), who appears to be confirming the fears that she was a lackluster and shallow legal mind, plays the safety karen in opposition to basic constitutional sense and application”
Ouch. But true. How she and Kavanaugh can run interference for the Establishment after what said establishment did to them as nominees to the Court is beyond me.
he gets it. his use of the term "federales" reminded me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StcA5KeNYoo
I disagree with Prof. Turley about the court taking an off-ramp. They defined standing like the Bush Administration defined torture: it isn't really torture unless you lose a limb or something. Now, we don't have standing unless we lose a limb or something.
The mainstream media, either out of ignorance, or out of deliberate deceit, or both, are covering this as a win for Biden. Technically, they are correct. Regardless, they spin it to make it a loss for you and for me. As you point out, this was a win for Biden, only on the standing issue.
I understand the issue of having standing to sue. Regarding this case, I agree with you and others that we all have standing when a First Amendment right is under threat.
The Supreme Court, wisely in my opinion, often narrowly tailors their decisions. In this case, they ducked their responsibility.
I agreed with Barrett when she told Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to narrow their decision regarding Colorado keeping Trump off the ballot. I can't find the exact citation but it seems she was referring to Section 2 or 3. They muddied a 9-0 decision and wouldn't have lost anything if they went with the narrow route. With their expanded rationale, no doubt nefarious actors looked at the decision to see if they can influence Congress to not allow Trump to take the presidency should he be elected in November. I seriously doubt the majority of Republicans in Congress would vote to deny seating him, but a small cadre of RINO Republicans could, in a narrowly divided House, work with the Dems to do just that. If this happens, the Supremes potentially gave up the right to check that nefarious shenanigan.
I hope with the Trump immunity decision that they remand it back to the lower court to decide the specific executive privilege claims. That would put the decision out of reach for the election season and render the issue moot if Trump wins in November. Then, the Supremes could kick the can down the road, hoping the Dem's lawlessness is handled where it belongs, by a shocked and disgusted electorate.
Maybe they're waiting for Berenson v Biden to arrive.
I haven't followed it closely for a while, but he has pretty clear injury and appears to have developed the case very carefully.
Still, the standing issue is a big problem.
https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/26/the-supreme-court-is-not-going-to-save-you/
OK, the author says there is nothing left to conserve. We need to have a revolution and a re-founding. But a re-founding based on what? What are the first principles? Before we tear down everything shouldn't there be some agreement on what is wrong? And if there is agreement on what is wrong, why do we have to tear down everything just to fix those problems? Sounds like Nihilism to me.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/25/amy-coney-barrett-isnt-just-the-best-woman-for-scotus-but-the-best-person-period/
Ugh. That didn’t age well.
She (the writer) graduated college in 2017 and went straight to Justice Barrett's law school. She's a silly youth with stars in her eyes. It's great to aspire, it is great to be inspired; I as a reader should have applied more discernment than to accept it, just because it is published by someone like The Federalist.
It isn't a matter of relying on the Supreme Court. The goverment was absolutely spanked by the lower courts. The lower courts went out of their way to make a decision that enabled the Supreme Court to back them up. This was an active move by the court.
Jeff Childers says the same thing.
The doctrine of standing should have no standing on constitutional questions.
All citizens who are not dual citizens and all states should have the right to challenge the constitutionality of the government's actions at any time. Furthermore, the government should be compelled to defend its policies and conduct even if it has ended them, which it often does to preempt encroachments upon its power and authority.
We can quibble over how often the same question can be brought before the court.
I really hate it when the courts allow the government to pull a constitutionally offensive action they've (the government) taken when it's going to court and it appears they (the government) are heading for a well-deserved spanking. I think the courts have the authority to hear the case and apply a decision.
Trump is under a gag order so he can’t comment on free speech at the moment.
Ironic, isn't it?
SCOTUS kicked the can down the road, due to Roberts play it safe, by not showing bias (supporting conservatives). Now is not the time to stir things up, with the Trump decision coming.
I view it as cowardice. The left is going to hate you no matter what.
Yeh Ray, I’m pretty much over Roberts and his “play it safe” attitude, I think cowardice sums it up quite nicely! Every since he made that stupid remark about there not being Obama judges or Trump judges, but just “judges” coupled with the “human pretzel” act he did with Obamacare, I’ve lost respect for the Chief Justice. Not to forget the totally ridiculous idea that they never solved the case of who leaked the abortion ruling!! Anyone who believes that also believes that Biden won’t be using any performance enhancing drugs during the debate.
In our local paper, some commenter posted that the "far right" justices, Thomas, Alito and Gorsusch have emasculated Roberts. I responded that as chief, Roberts has limited authority. He can't order a justice to vote a certain way. His big power is to reserve his right to assign the decision or dissent to himself. Even then, he has to hold on to all his votes, at least in the majority, when he narrowly tailors a decision to suit himself.
So two of Trump’s glorious SCOTUS picks sided with the censors?
One wrote the opinion, too. Barrett has neither sense nor a spine.
Like all Republican presidents, Trumps batting average on the Supremes is average. In his defense, he had turncoats named Flake, Murkowski, Collins and others ready to bolt if he chose freely, the way Dems get to put on anyone they want. Biden even said I'm naming a black woman and he did. Of course, he got his wish. Our side always has one hand tied behind our back due to various reasons.
Yep, the ones McConnell let through.
Just like his administration picks that were filtered by the eGOP controlled senate.
Interesting Speaker of the House Ryan was one of the first to get the Steele Dossier, but denied that for years till that fact finally came out in UK court.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/06/the_snakery_of_paul_ryan_one_of_the_first_to_have_the_steele_dossier_in_his_hot_little_hands_as_he_sent_investigators_out_to_probe_trump.html
Yeh, Paul Ryan definitely gets my vote for the “Bill Barr Sleezeball” award because of his treachery in this matter!! What a lying sack of crap he turned out to be in the end.
It feels like Trump is going to have to lock up political opponents and pressure social media to remove posts opposing him in order for SCOTUS and the left to realize that these Constitutional values have merit and must be upheld. As long as it is just the left that is abusing power, nobody is going to stop them, apparently.
I strongly believe in the rule of law. However, I wonder if you are spot on. Maybe let Trump really go after the media, the Deep State, Congress and give them a taste of what he went through.
I'm not sure if I want to go down that road. I fear if we don't go down that road (assuming Trump wins in 2024), the Dems will be ten times worse the next time they win. If we do give them a taste of their own medicine, how do we have standing to protest when they up the ante in 2028 or 2032?
It's a bad choice we face. I guess I vote for sticking to our principles and lots of prayer.
The hope is that they wouldn't "up the ante" in 2028 if they have experienced the wrath of government abuse of power. Once they have been censored and imprisoned, perhaps the courts will find a backbone and start enforcing the Constitution - or perhaps the left will decide, well, we better get back to following the Constitution because if we don't, we're the ones who end up with the boot stomping on our faces.
I realize this would be a dangerous game because there is a chance that Trump - or more likely someone else (I don't think Trump really has it in him)- would turn into a true dictator and never let any return to Constitutional norms happen. I would never choose this dangerous game but it is the tyrants who decided to censor social media, to force needles in our arms and to imprison political opponents. Those are now the rules and we have to play by them.
If you get into the Octagon with someone who brings a gun and you decide to stick with MMA rules, you're going to get killed. You better grab your own gun and hope that your opponent says "hey, maybe we put down our guns and fight using MMA rules".
You don't fight evil with evil. You fight evil with good. You don't reinforce principles by violating them but by upholding them. You don't validate the law by breaking it.
"Repay no one evil for evil. Have[a] regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. (Romans 12: 17-19)
What I mean is, you can't preserve something by negating it.
This course would only be applicable if the left's hypocrisy were accidental.
We are pretty much on the same page.
I hope so. Because, the Leftists get away with just about everything. Forget the Republicans. They are all the same. The SCJ's are the same. Those 3 Leftists women on the SC would never side with the Conservative SCJ's.