A court imposed an injunction on the Biden Administration, forbidding them from their practice of Friendly Coercion of social media monopolies, pressuring them to censor conservatives and true information about covid and vaccines and masking.
The court had not conducted a full trial on the merits of the lawsuit against Biden yet; it imposed the injunction pre-trial, reasoning 1, the plaintiffs would likely ultimately prevail and 2, allowing the government to continue censoring people while awaiting the trial deprived them of their speech rights in the interim.
The Supreme Court just overturned that injunction and told Biden he can continue censoring his political enemies while the lower court conducts a full trial.
The Supreme Court has blocked an injunction that would prevent the Biden administration from pressuring social media firms to take down content. Justices agreed to hear the Biden administration's appeal of the injunction, which will be stayed until the high court issues a ruling that could either uphold the injunction or block it permanently.
The decision to grant the stay and hear the administration's appeal was issued in an order Friday. The court previously issued a temporary stay while it considered whether to hear the case, so the injunction has not been enforced.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing that the stay "allows the defendants to persist in committing the type of First Amendment violations that the lower courts identified. The majority takes this action in the face of the lower courts' detailed findings of fact."
So Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh supported the liberals (and John Roberts). Wow, what great justices.
Let Amy Coney Barrett be the very fucking last justice Republicans okay based on biography and gender and race.
The case began with the Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general suing the Biden administration in US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, alleging that the government violated the First Amendment by colluding with social networks "to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content." US District Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump nominee, issued a sweeping injunction ordering the administration to halt a wide range of communications with social media companies.
...
Alito's dissent on Friday, which was joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, criticized the majority for issuing its decision "without any explanation." The decision "suspends the effect of that injunction until the Court completes its review of this case, an event that may not occur until late in the spring of next year," Alito wrote.
"Government censorship of private speech is antithetical to our democratic form of government, and therefore today's decision is highly disturbing," Alito's dissent said. A stay requires the government to show that there is "a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay," Alito wrote, arguing that the Biden administration did not clear that bar.
The government's key censorship agency, CISA, braces for (ineffectual) GOP attacks.
This is Politico reporting repeating, so of course they push the idea that America cannot survive without an agency created by Trump five years ago.
An agency set up under Donald Trump to protect elections and key U.S. infrastructure from foreign hackers is now fighting off increasingly intense threats from hard-right Republicans who argue it's gone too far and are looking for ways to rein it in.
These lawmakers insist work by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to combat online disinformation during elections singles out conservative voices and infringes upon free speech rights -- an allegation the agency vehemently denies and the Biden administration is contesting in court. The accusations started in the wake of the 2020 election and are ramping up ahead of 2024, with lawmakers now calling for crippling cuts at the agency.
"CISA has blatantly violated the First Amendment and colluded with Big Tech to censor the speech of ordinary Americans," Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which oversees CISA, said in a statement to POLITICO.
The fight over CISA underscores yet another way Trump's election fraud claims are reverberating into 2024. And though the hard right doesn't have enough votes to defund CISA today, the growing backlash against it has supporters worried that a hard-right faction could hobble the agency in the years ahead -- undermining its efforts not just to secure future elections, but also protect key U.S. and federal networks from major hacks.
LOL. I mean, there's no possible way to defund its censorship functions while continuing to fund anti-hacking efforts, right, Politico?
...
But when Chris Krebs, the then-head of CISA, debunked Trump's 2020 election fraud claims, the president fired him. And since the GOP assumed control of the House in 2022, like-minded Republicans have been ratcheting up their scrutiny of the agency.
So that's the only censorship activity CISA is engaging in, Politico? It didn't coordinate with social media monopolies to censor true information about covid and vaccines, huh?
As multiple federal courts have issued various rulings on the legality of child sex bans, legal experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the Supreme Court is likely to take up the issue.
In Tennessee, Alabama, and Kentucky, federal courts have upheld child sex change bans, while bans in other states, such as Arkansas, have been struck down. The arguments against the bans are often derived from the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, but those arguments aren't likely to survive on the Supreme Court level, where challenges to the bans are likely headed, legal experts told the DCNF.
"The next stop is the Supreme Court," Sarah Perry, a senior legal fellow for the Heritage Foundation, told the DCNF.
The circuit splits at the Appeals level of the court system all but guarantee that a child sex change lawsuit will find its way to the Supreme Court, Perry explained.
...
The new standard set by the recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization also presents a potential issue for anyone who would argue a child sex change ban violates the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, Jipping told the DCNF.
"Dobbs has changed the playing field by insisting on the text, history and tradition test in the case of Due Process," Roger Brooks, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom and co-counsel for the Alabama sex-change case, told the DCNF.
Rights derived through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment must be "'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,'" the Supreme Court wrote in the Dobbs decision in June 2022.
"It's not rooted in our text, history, or tradition," Perry said, speaking about child sex change surgeries and gender ideology.
There must be some sort of legal precedent and history of ordinances or laws that were created to ensure the protection of a right that is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, Jipping told the DCNF.
"This court is skeptical about creating rights that aren't in the constitution," Jipping said.
Wow, what a radical notion -- taking the position that a "constitutional right" must be mentioned in the actual Constitution to be right.
We'll see if Judging Amy once again sides with Roberts in her Liberal Ingratiation and Media Make-Over Tour.