Looks Like Two Trump Justices Have Just Failed the First Amendment Test
21WIRE
Make no mistake about it – this latest SCOTUS decision is a major blow against free speech online. And it can’t come at a more crucial juncture in American politics as we approach another contentious presidential election cycle.
The Biden Administration is celebrating the 6-3 decision against Missouri and Louisiana. Why? Because state and local Democrat officials are eagerly looking to crack down on alleged election-related “misinformation and disinformation” ahead of November 5th.
The plaintiffs in this case were right to impose a check on the federal government’s egregious violation of the First Amendment, where federal agencies and even the White House itself – pressured Facebook, Twitter, Google and YouTube to massively censor users’ speech and even sharing information by deleting posts critical of government disastrous policies like the vaccine mandates and Covid restrictions. Let’s also remember Jack Dorsey and Twitter’s censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of the 2020 election.
Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett have indeed done some significant damage, not only to the rights and freedoms of Americans, but anyone around the world weighing-in on any issue online that Washington and their Big Tech donor class deem to be too controversial for public discussion and debate.
Steve Deace writes for The Blaze…
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Wednesday in Murthy v. Missouri was no mere procedural vote on standing. Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett have betrayed us.
The U.S. Supreme Court may have mortally wounded the Constitution this week by seemingly forgetting or not caring that the First Amendment is kind of the whole ballgame.
I mean, it was first, after all. Isn’t that important? You might even say that it — to borrow a legal phrase — indicates “standing.”
Stick with me now, John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Because if “we the people” don’t have permanent and unambiguous standing on behalf of the First Amendment to the Constitution, then explain to me what we can possibly have standing on without threat of it being taken away.
And what is the ACLU’s standing to sue Oklahoma over speech? Or what’s the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation’s standing to sue Louisiana over speech? Notice how this street only goes one way? So if you happen to think this latest Supreme Court perversion of justice in Murthy v. Missouri is just a procedural vote, let me first tell you that David French and his never-ending menagerie of blessings of liberty send their regards.
Let me now put a finer point on it. Do any of you remember the 2013 marriage case known as Windsor v. United States? And do you remember on what grounds the Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional? There were concurring majority opinions, but the main reason the court ruled against the marriage amendment in California was that — wait for it — the people of California lacked standing.
More than 8 million Californians voted for Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. That’s more than had ever voted for any Republican candidate for office, from governor to president, in the state’s history. Thus, when it comes to questions of “standing,” the game has been afoot for quite some time.
This was not merely a simple procedural thing for the current court to rule on standing. This was a coward’s way out for Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. They are now in the same class of justices who botched Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott, and Roe v. Wade.
This Supreme Court ruling has made clear it is fine for you to be sorted as an “other” if it suits the appropriate powers and principalities. Now who is doing that sorting, you might ask?
In each of the three historic cases mentioned above, it was the government saying separate is equal, Dred Scott is property, and the unborn aren’t persons.
So shall it be moving forward regarding vaccines, transgenderism, and whatever else the woke terrorists demand. Can you imagine the level of censorship you should prepare to see in the next 19 weeks ahead of the November election? It doesn’t matter that they got caught red-handed burying the Hunter Biden laptop story to win last time. They just got permission to top that every day.
So don’t you dare try to tell me that I’m overreacting. I’ve written two best-selling books about the COVID scam that is the Orwellian impetus for the government and Big Tech cabal behind Murthy v. Missouri. Yet I’m now being told that we must vote Republican to get good judges so we can make censorship great again in the name of injecting a toxic genetic serum in our arms without any say whatsoever?
In hindsight — and I can’t believe I’m going to say this because I find it revolting — knowing what I know now after the pro-life movement has lost ground upon the rejection of Roe two year ago, I would honestly trade losing the Dobbs case in exchange for reversing Murthy. That’s how vital I think this is.
Social media is the modern-day town square, and you have been told to expect to get the hell out whenever it suits those who hate you for daring to get up in the morning and having an opinion that isn’t state-approved. I don’t know how it’s even possible to overreact to this dreadful decision. America’s founders threw tea into the harbor simply for being taxed too much. For this, they wouldn’t have hesitated to set the entire boat on fire and send it to the bottom of the ocean.
This is 2024, though. Today, I am compelled to vote for Donald Trump to throw a monkey wrench into this absurd and lawless status quo while fully realizing that he’s the guy who gave us two of the justices who just steamrolled the First Amendment. To think we fought like hell for a known mediocrity like Kavanaugh because of how deceitful we found the attacks against him during his confirmation only to have him just announce it’s open season on us.
Isn’t that a kick in the pants?
Tragically, we are probably not deserving of a better fate. Cultural gluttony and civic decadence can only go on for so long before the wheels come off and the destination becomes the bottom of a cliff. How’s that for “standing”?
I’m sure our children will understand.
(ORGINAL ARTICLE)
(TLB) published this article from 21WIRE
Header featured image (edited) credit: Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barret/org. 21WIRE post
Emphasis added by (TLB)
••••
••••
Stay tuned tuned…
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Twice I have had comments deleted by You Tube because they violated “community standards”. My comments were clearly protected by the First Amendment. The implication is that the loyalty of You Tube belongs to a nation other than America.