“Supreme Court backs Biden administration in social media dispute with red states” Biden 1; People 0. Oh, And Happy Canada Day! (July 1, 2024)
. . .
K “The headline above an Associated Press article astutely sums up the score. Law in America is a game and a sport with winners and losers. The decisions should be printed and debated on the Sports Page. However, there is no justice.”
J “Not allowing them to make their argument was callow.”
. . .
K “The idea that even an ordinary person off the street does not have standing to defend the most fundamental Constitutional right is obscene. They were advocating for free speech and were not even allowed to speak. I know obscenity when I see it.”
J “Time to appoint non-lawyers to the courts. Lawyers are not capable of handling the task. A new team is our only salvation.”
. . .
K “I suspect they were discreetly reminded that they should not forget who they are dealing with. Any one of the more than half dozen vaunted persuasion vectors alone could have been persuasive.”
. . .
[See the e-commentary at Murthy v. Missouri: AMA v. AAPS; Flaccid Amendment v. First Amendment. The Speakers’ Corner And The Public Square. (March 18, 2024).]
Bumper stickers of the week:
“[O]ne of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years.”
There was “more than sufficient” evidence that Jill Hines, one of the plaintiffs, had standing to sue “and consequently, we are obligated to tackle the free speech issue that the case presents.”
“The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think.”
“The Government’s pressure tactics, which included threats of adverse regulatory action, cannot be dismissed as mere persuasion.”
“This ruling effectively grants the government a free pass to continue its campaign of suppression, threatening the foundational principles of free expression.”
Justice Samuel Alito
Leave a comment