interesting 1A cases today...

[Aardvark86]

So today, Scotus hears a case challenging government arm-twisting of social media companies regarding their content moderation policies, and a case challenging government officials jawboning third parties to boycott business arrangements with another private party. As usual, lots of procedural issues, but I may actually listen to these.

 

[ICWestfan]

So today, Scotus hears a case challenging government arm-twisting of social media companies regarding their content moderation policies, and a case challenging government officials jawboning third parties to boycott business arrangements with another private party. As usual, lots of procedural issues, but I may actually listen to these.

Do you have a subscription to SCOTUS Radio?

 

[THE_DEVIL]

I absolutely agree that government should not be able to strong arm free speech. The issue I have is how do you define pressure/strong arming? My apprehension is SCOTUS will fall back on their standard Congress needs to make a law mantra. I don't want either party defining free speech issues at this time.

 

[SSG T]

I absolutely agree that government should not be able to strong arm free speech. The issue I have is how do you define pressure/strong arming? My apprehension is SCOTUS will fall back on their standard Congress needs to make a law mantra. I don't want either party defining free speech issues at this time.

I'm not sure I want a SCOTUS to the right of the one from the Citizen's United ruling to determine a definition of free speech, either.

 

[ping72]

Do you have a subscription to SCOTUS Radio?

It’s included in the Hulu/Disney+ bundle.

 

[HawCory]

I absolutely agree that government should not be able to strong arm free speech. The issue I have is how do you define pressure/strong arming? My apprehension is SCOTUS will fall back on their standard Congress needs to make a law mantra. I don't want either party defining free speech issues at any time. Never, ever, ever.

FIFY

 

[lucas80]

One man's strong arming is another man's attempt to put a disclaimer on posts saying it's okay to eat horse paste.

 

[lucas80]

Interesting that the SCOTUS did rule that states can keep insurrectionists out of state offices, but running for a national office is okay for insurrectionists.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-...k-new-mexico-cc69572ec4a4404c69947d7d91b3960a

 

[Aardvark86]

Do you have a subscription to SCOTUS Radio?

LOL; no, the audio link is on scotusblog.com

 

[Finance85]

Interesting that the SCOTUS did rule that states can keep insurrectionists out of state offices, but running for a national office is okay for insurrectionists.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-...k-new-mexico-cc69572ec4a4404c69947d7d91b3960a

They didn't say that. That's a mischaracterization. Congress must decide on the rules for disqualification for VPOTUS and POTUS.

 

[Finance85]

The liberal justices seem to favor the government so far.

I'm always going to pay most attention to Gorsuch in purely Constitutional cases.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

So today, Scotus hears a case challenging government arm-twisting of social media companies regarding their content moderation policies.

I for one think it’s cool that the Court has abandoned its prior standing decisions and is now issuing advisory opinions.

 

[DeangeloVickers]

One man's strong arming is another man's attempt to put a disclaimer on posts saying it's okay to eat horse paste.

The fact you don't see the irony in this post makes it perfect for this thread. Well done as always Lucas!

 

[sober_teacher]

They didn't say that. That's a mischaracterization. Congress must decide on the rules for disqualification for VPOTUS and POTUS.

Which of course is ever going to happen.

 

[lucas80]

They didn't say that. That's a mischaracterization. Congress must decide on the rules for disqualification for VPOTUS and POTUS.

LOL, sure. The SCOTUS bowed to Trump instead of having the courage to be a co-equal branch.

 

[Finance85]

Which of course is ever going to happen.

Congress already codified the penalty for insurrection. They did not codify the specific process for disqualification absent a criminal charge and conviction in federal court.

 

[sober_teacher]

Congress already codified the penalty for insurrection. They did not codify the specific process for disqualification absent a criminal charge and conviction in federal court.

Seriously, you think congress NOW would act on this?

 

[Finance85]

Seriously, you think congress NOW would act on this?

No. Why would I think that? They can't even pass a single purpose law securing the border.

 

[sober_teacher]

No. Why would I think that? They can't even pass a single purpose law securing the border.

Then you saying congress must act on that is pointless.

 

[Finance85]

Then you saying congress must act on that is pointless.

No, I was stating what SCOTUS ruled. Jeesh.

 

[sober_teacher]

No, I was stating what SCOTUS ruled. Jeesh.

I know you were, and the fact that you, me and the avg American voter knows Congress won’t act on this like SCOTUS wants, makes what they’re saying to be intellectually dishonest at best.

Will they revisit a case like a previous Court had to do regarding the Brown decision and put pressure on Congress to act, or will they just wipe their hands and state their job is done.

 

[Joes Place]

So today, Scotus hears a case challenging government arm-twisting of social media companies regarding their content moderation policies, and a case challenging government officials jawboning third parties to boycott business arrangements with another private party. As usual, lots of procedural issues, but I may actually listen to these.

Listen for the volume of disinformation in the Mizzou case.
Many allegations that have turned out to be demonstrably false, but still being left in the record...

A Conspiracy Theory Goes to the Supreme Court: How Did Murthy v Missouri Get This Far?

Murthy v Missouri may become a landmark case in which Supreme Court justices are led astray on the basis of a disinformation-laden record.

www.justsecurity.org

 

[Joes Place]

 

[dgordo]

The liberal justices seem to favor the government so far.

I'm always going to pay most attention to Gorsuch in purely Constitutional cases.

Seemed all the justices except Alito were favoring the government.

 

[Finance85]

View embedded media

You live in another, alternate universe.

 

[Finance85]

Seemed all the justices except Alito were favoring the government.

Yes, it did. When it comes to government control, sometimes both sides agree, but for different reasons, but all for the alleged reason on safety. It was pointed out at least once, but not very forcefully, is the Feds have a bully pulpit. If they don't agree with certain speech, all they have to do is get in front of the podium and say so.

Sometimes the Justices will fool us though. Sometimes it seems they want to hear the best argument against how they might personally be leaning, so they have a better perspective.