Originally published at: Supreme Court Slaps Down 5th Circuit Again In Biden Social Media Case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a couple of red states and individual far-right actors lacked standing to ban the Biden administration from urging tech companies to suppress disinformation. Similarly to the recent mifepristone decision, pegging the decision to standing allowed the Court to skirt the potential First Amendment landmines in the merits —…
1 Like
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, wrote the dissent.
More importantly this morning, has Alito shown up today?
ETA:
14 Likes
“Clerical error”, right. They probably talked to an actual cleric and then realized that was a bad idea.
13 Likes
All these reasonable rulings over the last couple of days is making me very nervous about whether they are a fig leaf for some unbelievably bad decisions coming in the next few days. Hopefully I’m just paranoid, but this Court majority doesn’t exactly exude reasonableness or respect for precedent.
41 Likes
We know how they’ll rule in Chevron … I can’t imagine them not going against it.
10 Likes
I am pretty sure the money behind the social media platforms (at least most of them) would never want this case to succeed because it would allow their platform to be easily degraded.
So the Republican business class won this one.
5 Likes
Toxic mutterings from Alito tell the tale: some nasty decisions are about to pop.
12 Likes
The online right is already calling for OfJesse to be replaced by Loose Cannon.
17 Likes
What the fuck is wrong with Alito? I know what’s wrong with Thomas, he’s simply a greedy, corrupt asshole. But Alito’s assholery is without its payday.
And his head is loose, he’s like a living bobblehead.
10 Likes
Democrats need to win big enough majorities to have a functional Congress, free of them tripping over their own junk to get anything passed.
These standing and jurisdictional issues should be clearly defined. Courts are running rampantly through the power vacuum left by Republican-paralyzed, Worse-than-useless, Congress.
14 Likes
I’m more concerned about the mayor who was flat out allowed to keep his bribe. Calling it a gratuity, and it wasn’t corrupt because it was paid after the contract was awarded, not before. Cute.
So what’s to stop, say, a Terrence Clomas figure from saying no, my private jet setting yachting ways are not corrupt at all, because I believed in my right to accept gratuities before that ship ever sailed!
15 Likes
What could be the point, since we know it can’t be “jurisprudence”? To show how putting the Convicted Felon back in the Oval Office to appoint more maga-jerks to the bench is just fine, because look how reasonable his appointees are? Not scary at all?
To my observation, Dems have not yet begun to argue that it’s important to have a Democrat in the White House AND a Democratic Senate, because Judges with lifetime appointments. This series of decisions would seem to pre-empt that argument. And really, they’re bad cases. No real grounds in the first place. Brought by uninvolved randos, like the jokers who sued against mifepristone.
But Democrats haven’t yet even gotten their shoes on as far as the Judges thing goes. I hope it’s not too late.
3 Likes
Alito really is a POS. Only a church can mint this flavor of motherfucker.
5 Likes
It makes perfect sense if we think about how many disgusting right-wing figures audition for higher jobs by performing egregious actions on spec.
6 Likes
This isn’t all that reasonable a ruling.
The ruling was reached on standing: in my view, it should have been reached on the merits. The court has ruled in the past that there is no free speech right to yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. There is similarly no free speech right to distribute misinformation and disinformation in the midst of a pandemic. The Court should have found so.
My response was not fully thought through. (H/T to @joelopines for pointing that out.) I maintain it’s not all that reasonable a ruling, but I’m not sure how they should have ruled.
4 Likes
Most of the reporting on the issue frames it as “the Biden Administration” censoring social media. Which that administration has no capacity to do.
Biden asked FB and some others to take a look at what was being posted on their platforms and consider removing the bullshit in order to SAVE LIVES that might be lost to COVID lies. How does any Court consider that something that should be litigated. Although the MSM drones on and on about freedom of speech. A near meaningless term nowadays. So far I’ve seen no reporting addressing whether it’s responsible of POTUS to protect lives from lies and whether or not he has the freedom of speech to do so.
13 Likes
No doubt the answer will prompt my facepalm 
, but who?
And you are right. Alito and his BFF Thomas just ruled that they can take more 5 star trips on billionaire private jets as long as they come after a ruling in the billionaire’s favor. Before is a bribe after is a gratuity which seems to be a euphemism for payback.
16 Likes
He wants to be Torquemada, only more splenetic.
11 Likes
Consider the source. Two of the biggest gratuity boys ever to frequent an American high Court said “nothing to see here”. That’s not a surprise. Had they not been blinded by greed and lust for the high life they might have considered that a allowing ANY money going to a Pol before or after the fact encourages corruption. What we used to call payment on completion of the job was never meant to apply to political folks.
Clarence is waiting for his new wheels.
8 Likes