US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

Status
Not open for further replies.
BidenGIF.gif
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Informative
Reactions: ThisIsGonnaBeGood, The Shredder, ActualCracker and 120 others
Click to expand...
The "government telling social media companies to censor" case was thrown out for """standing""" reasons:
1719411546926.png
Barrett, Roberts, and Kavanaugh voted with the leftists:
BARRETT, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined.
Click to expand...
Because covid is over and the government stopped issuing censorship requests related to covid, you can't sue them:
To obtain forward-looking relief, the plaintiffs must establish a substantial risk of future injury that is traceable to the Government defendants and likely to be redressed by an injunction against them. The plaintiffs who have not pointed to any past restrictions likely traceable to the Government defendants (i.e., everyone other than Hines) are ill suited to the task of establishing their standing to seek forward-looking relief. But even Hines, with her superior showing on past harm, has not shown enough to demonstrate likely future harm at the hands of these defendants. On this record, it appears that the frequent, intense communications that took place in 2021 between the Government defendants and the platforms had considerably subsided by 2022, when Hines filed suit. Thus it is “no more than conjecture” to assume that Hines will be subject to Government-induced content moderation. Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 108.

The plaintiffs’ counterarguments are unpersuasive. First, they argue that they suffer “continuing, present adverse effects” from their past restrictions, as they must now self-censor on social media. O’Shea, 414 U. S., at 496. But the plaintiffs “cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.” Clapper, 568 U. S., at 416. Second, the plaintiffs suggest that the platforms continue to suppress their speech according to policies initially adopted under Government pressure. But the plaintiffs have a redressability problem. Without evidence of continued pressure from the defendants, the platforms remain free to enforce, or not to enforce, their policies—even those tainted by initial governmental coercion. And the available evidence indicates that the platforms have continued to enforce their policies against COVID–19 misinformation even as the Federal Government has wound down its own pandemic response measures. Enjoining the Government defendants, therefore, is unlikely to affect the platforms’ content-moderation decisions. Pp. 21– 27.
Click to expand...
Full Opinion (Archive)
 

Attachments

Last edited:
  • Lunacy
  • Informative
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Alaric the Visigoth, Confused Doggo, Romeo and 40 others
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Lunacy
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Wendell X, The Howlers of Mars, Vecr and 13 others
Trump knows a LOT more about how to be a pest than just screaming. I am almost sure his strategy will be to force Biden to speak. It's all he has to do really, Biden can fuck himself if given the rope to do so. The moderators are the ones who are actually gonna be debating him and Trump can refuse to talk to them and just go "I'm sorry, I thought Joe Biden was my debate opponent, not you?"
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: Wendell X, argostug, John.Doe and 24 others
HTTP Error 404 said:
View attachment 6126127
View attachment 6126128

To confirm, yes, this is their plan. Biden is going to try and piss Trump off so he goes off the rails or says something they can scare voters with or use in attack ads and then play that up instead of allowing anyone to play up Biden's confusion or lack of substance. That's all they have left at this point. Remind people of the 6 years of agitprop American Pravda did against him from 2014 to 2020.
Click to expand...
And again, it reminds me so much of them constantly bringing up Charlottesville in the 2020 debate. They want the same reaction
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Wendell X, Yamma Damma, Vecr and 6 others
Meat Target said:
I don't wanna hear another fucking word about how SCOTUS is "extremist". Even the ACLU admits that the government cannot sidestep the Constitution by having the private sector do its dirty work.

Guess all the shitlib slander against Kavanaugh and Barrett worked. They're now scared of them.
Click to expand...
It is less they are compromised and more that the case was -really stupid-. Standing actually -is- important, its about setting up a direct link between you and the damages that occurred and finally to why that matters constitutionally. Importantly here, you need to establish what you want done about it.

The plaintiffs... only ever sought relief over what -could- occur in the future not what -did- occur to them. Nobody has standing for hypothetical harm. You cannot sue over a potential action.

The whole case was a botch from start to finish.

Addendum: I actually half-think that these botched cases are GOPe bullshit. They take an actual issue but rather overtly do it in a way that -will- be slapped down and -should- be slapped down. It has happened to consistently even in the brief time I have actually turned my attention to it to not be a deliberate pattern.
 
  • Optimistic
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Informative
Reactions: Snekposter, Another Char Clone, argostug and 20 others
Gehenna said:
It is less they are compromised and more that the case was -really stupid-. Standing actually -is- important, its about setting up a direct link between you and the damages that occurred and finally to why that matters constitutionally. Importantly here, you need to establish what you want done about it.

The plaintiffs... only ever sought relief over what -could- occur in the future not what -did- occur to them. Nobody has standing for hypothetical harm. You cannot sue over a potential action.

The whole case was a botch from start to finish.

Addendum: I actually half-think that these botched cases are GOPe bullshit. They take an actual issue but rather overtly do it in a way that -will- be slapped down and -should- be slapped down. It has happened to consistently even in the brief time I have actually turned my attention to it to not be a deliberate pattern.
Click to expand...
Cope. Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts saw a glimmer of an opportunity to wave the white flag and seized on it.

Unless Project 2025 involves giving the GOPe a (metaphorical) Night of the Long Knives, they will always be the Party of Stockholm Syndrome.
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
  • Autistic
Reactions: John.Doe, make_it_so, Vecr and 13 others
Meat Target said:
Cope. Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts saw a glimmer of an opportunity to wave the white flag and seized on it.
Click to expand...
Less cope than you might think. The court dynamic is interesting now. The three conservative justices (Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas) all seem to have cottoned on to what's going on and want to ram the cases through anyway rather than allow GOPe sabotage. The liberal justices are all in for it. The three middle justices you name have a mixture of legitimate issues, lack of doom pilling, desire to please their overlords, and genuine fear. Its not as simple as wanting to wave the white flag though that is an element.

All together, the situation is -fucked-.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Wendell X, John.Doe, Yamma Damma and 11 others
Gehenna said:
The plaintiffs... only ever sought relief over what -could- occur in the future not what -did- occur to them. Nobody has standing for hypothetical harm. You cannot sue over a potential action.
Click to expand...
They are scheduled to release an opinion on the Idaho abortion case where the Biden administration's argument is centered around theoretical harm that could potentially occur to a woman who needs an abortion to save her life (even though the law explicitly allows abortions if necessary to save the life of the mother).

I doubt the Court will dismiss the case citing a lack of standing despite the fact that not a single woman in Idaho has died or been injured because she couldn't get an abortion.
 
  • Agree
  • Optimistic
  • Winner
Reactions: Wendell X, John.Doe, Yamma Damma and 12 others
HTTP Error 404 said:
If Trump has any goddamned sense, he'd fire up lawsuits in every single state to keep her off the ballot. It's too late to swap, IIRC.
Click to expand...
Is that really a good idea? State ballot access laws are the law, but if one candidate ran unopposed in the US Presidential election because the other was incapacitated or died months before but the state deadlines ran out, we would have a Constitutional Crisis.

Or to put a fine point on it, if Trump dropped dead tomorrow are you fine with Biden getting an automatic W?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vecr, World Famous Quasi Payer and Overly Serious
Gehenna said:
All together, the situation is -fucked-.
Click to expand...
Sadly I think they're trying to play it safe too. They'll do something like bump stocks that'll please the right, then something like this and DV gun decision that pleases the left. They never want to go all out typically. This particular one is relatively low on the scale of outrage that'll happen, so it *possibly* could be used to soften the blow of a Trump immunity, which I think is by far the biggest out of all these and either way that'll be a PR nightmare for them.

The whole point of having life terms for USSC is to not worry about PR and politics, but that's out the window obviously for a long time now.
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: John.Doe, Yamma Damma, Potatoherder and 4 others
Gehenna said:
Less cope than you might think. The court dynamic is interesting now. The three conservative justices (Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas) all seem to have cottoned on to what's going on and want to ram the cases through anyway rather than allow GOPe sabotage. The liberal justices are all in for it. The three middle justices you name have a mixture of legitimate issues, lack of doom pilling, desire to please their overlords, and genuine fear. Its not as simple as wanting to wave the white flag though that is an element.

All together, the situation is -fucked-.
Click to expand...
How can the situation be fucked if the below is true
Gehenna said:
It is less they are compromised and more that the case was -really stupid-. Standing actually -is- important, its about setting up a direct link between you and the damages that occurred and finally to why that matters constitutionally. Importantly here, you need to establish what you want done about it.

The plaintiffs... only ever sought relief over what -could- occur in the future not what -did- occur to them. Nobody has standing for hypothetical harm. You cannot sue over a potential action.

The whole case was a botch from start to finish.

Addendum: I actually half-think that these botched cases are GOPe bullshit. They take an actual issue but rather overtly do it in a way that -will- be slapped down and -should- be slapped down. It has happened to consistently even in the brief time I have actually turned my attention to it to not be a deliberate pattern.
Click to expand...
They're just making correct rulings that leave constitutional violations unaddressed and allow for future violations because muh standing. Try at least reading the quoted part of the ruling, which is insane fucking bullshit. The government did it, but it stopped, so our hands are tied. The government might not do it in the future, so our hands are tied. This is a legal standard that is glaringly absent in other cases involving civil rights, especially when blacks are involved
 
  • Agree
  • Optimistic
  • Like
Reactions: Wendell X, argostug, John.Doe and 13 others
draggs said:
This is a legal standard that is glaringly absent in other cases involving civil rights, especially when blacks are involved
Click to expand...
It appears that, once again, I must tap the sign.

X Prime said:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the Second Constitution.

This is not really hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Read Age of Entitlement.

EDIT: Actually, I should elaborate.

The CRA, that most foul and unholy of laws, had three purposes:

1) To punish the South which was embarrassing the politicos.
2) To prevent black riots.
3) To enshrine a permanent bureaucracy not accountable to anyone.

Every modern lawyer worships at the proverbial feet of the CRA. This should be sufficiently explanatory to readers as to why this happens.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Romeo, Wendell X, John.Doe and 10 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back