Dang Ol’ GOP SCOTUS Did It Again

[BradStevens]

And the Clinton Foundation?

The Clinton Foundation Is Dead — But The Case Against Hillary Isn't

While everyone's been gearing up for President Trump's inauguration, the Clinton Foundation made a major announcement this week that went by with almost no notice: For all intents and purposes,... Read More

www.investors.com

 

[dbmhoosier]

You were saying? @Willdog7

 

[DANC]

You were saying? @Willdog7

View embedded media

View embedded media

Wouldn't hear it because of lack of 'standing'. Why a bunch of horseshit.

Every citizen has 'standing' when it comes to freedom of speech and the government interference in free speech.

Evidently that's the new judicial tactic - if you don't want to decide a topic, claim the parties have lack of standing.

 

[Stuffshot]

Wouldn't hear it because of lack of 'standing'. Why a bunch of horseshit.

Every citizen has 'standing' when it comes to freedom of speech and the government interference in free speech.

Evidently that's the new judicial tactic - if you don't want to decide a topic, claim the parties have lack of standing.

You mean the Republican Trump appointees did this?

 

[DANC]

You mean the Republican Trump appointees did this?

Yes, along with the 3 Democrat appointees.

 

[dbmhoosier]

Wouldn't hear it because of lack of 'standing'. Why a bunch of horseshit.

Every citizen has 'standing' when it comes to freedom of speech and the government interference in free speech.

Evidently that's the new judicial tactic - if you don't want to decide a topic, claim the parties have lack of standing.

Same thing they did with the 2020 election dispute. Texas really doesn't have standing to challenge an unconstitutional Presidential election? Have you seen what's happened to its border?

Good news is this means SCOTUS is very likely to drop a couple atomic bombs very soon that they left will hate...the Jan 6 case and immunity. Roberts loves to do this shit. Throw the lefties a bone to play both sides of the fence.

 

[DANC]

Same thing they did with the 2020 election dispute. Texas really doesn't have standing to challenge an unconstitutional Presidential election? Have you seen what's happened to its border?

Good news is this means SCOTUS is very likely to drop a couple atomic bombs very soon that they left will hate...the Jan 6 case and immunity. Roberts loves to do this shit. Throw the lefties a bone to play both sides of the fence.

I was thinking the same thing, but figured it was too conspiratorial. lol

I fully expect them to punt on the immunity issue, saying something like "Well, the President does have immunity, except in some cases.....". And then each case would be decided on its own, which means any lower court ruling can be appealed. Which I actually think is correct. A blanket immunity is not something I want if a Democrat is President.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Same thing they did with the 2020 election dispute. Texas really doesn't have standing to challenge an unconstitutional Presidential election? Have you seen what's happened to its border?

Good news is this means SCOTUS is very likely to drop a couple atomic bombs very soon that they left will hate...the Jan 6 case and immunity. Roberts loves to do this shit. Throw the lefties a bone to play both sides of the fence.

I enjoy it when you and DANC discuss the law. It’s like watching dogs play chess.

 

[Stuffshot]

Yes, along with the 3 Democrat appointees.

🤣

 

[Stuffshot]

Wouldn't hear it because of lack of 'standing'. Why a bunch of horseshit.

Every citizen has 'standing' when it comes to freedom of speech and the government interference in free speech.

Evidently that's the new judicial tactic - if you don't want to decide a topic, claim the parties have lack of standing.

LOL. Standing is not a "new judicial tactic." The fact you might not be familiar with it does not make it new.

I don't expect you to read it, but here's the opinion:

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

The thing that stands out in the opinion is the apparent low quality of the legal arguments by the plaintiffs.

Three examples: Their lawyers didn't bother to sue the entities that actually blocked/deleted their content (Facebook and X). Also, the plaintiffs don't seem to have explained why the government was responsible for the blocking/ deletion by Facebook and X that occurred even before the government communicated with Facebook and X. And, they didn't explain why one plaintiff had standing to sue for blocking/deletion of a post by his brother, not his own post.

Read the actual opinion.

 

[Stuffshot]

Yes, along with the 3 Democrat appointees.

How can this be?!

The Trump appointees are acting like Democrats.

 

[Willdog7]

Wouldn't hear it because of lack of 'standing'. Why a bunch of horseshit.

Every citizen has 'standing' when it comes to freedom of speech and the government interference in free speech.

Evidently that's the new judicial tactic - if you don't want to decide a topic, claim the parties have lack of standing.

fREE speech does not include lying.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

fREE speech does not include lying.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

fREE speech does not include lying.

Sure it does. So long as you lie without malice you are good to go.

 

[dbmhoosier]

 

[dbmhoosier]

Kaboom