The Supremes

wildcat09 · February 26

10 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

they control the senate now.

Well, if they can get Sinema to show up they do.

Zonahorn · February 26

Biff Tannen · February 26

4 hours ago, bolverk said:

Surprised that no one is discussing the internet free speech case in front of SCOTUS this morning. Shit, this might be worthy of its own thread since it could have a direct bearing on how this site operates.

Supreme Court Seems Torn in Free Speech Challenges to Social Media Laws
The tech industry argues that laws in Florida and Texas, prompted by conservative complaints about censorship, violate the First Amendment. The court’s decision could fundamentally alter the nature of speech on the internet.

The Supreme Court seemed troubled on Monday by a Florida law that prohibits social media companies from disfavoring conservative speakers, at least to the extent that it bars major platforms like Facebook and YouTube from making editorial judgments. But several justices indicated that the sprawling law may be constitutional as applied to other sites like Gmail, Venmo, Uber and Etsy.

The court spent more than two hours debating the Florida law, and it went on to consider a similar one from Texas in a second argument. But based on questions in the first argument, the justices seemed torn about how to address broad challenges to laws that may be unconstitutional in key respects but permissible in others.

The court’s decision, expected by June, will almost certainly be its most important statement on the scope of the First Amendment in the internet era, and it will have major political and economic implications. A ruling that tech platforms have no editorial discretion to decide what posts to allow would expose users to a greater variety of viewpoints but almost certainly amplify the ugliest aspects of the digital age, including hate speech and disinformation.

That, in turn, could deal a blow to the platforms’ business models, which rely on curation to attract users and advertisers.

The laws’ supporters said they were an attempt to combat what they called Silicon Valley censorship, through which major social media companies had deleted posts expressing conservative views. The laws were prompted in part by the decisions of some platforms to bar President Donald J. Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

The laws, from Florida and Texas, differ in their details. Florida’s prevents the platforms from permanently barring candidates for political office in the state while Texas’ prohibits the platforms from removing any content based on a user’s viewpoint. “To generalize just a bit,” Judge Andrew S. Oldham wrote in a decision upholding the Texas law, the Florida law “prohibits all censorship of some speakers,” while the one from Texas “prohibits some censorship of all speakers” when based on the views they express.

The two trade associations challenging the state laws — NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association — said that the actions Judge Oldham called censorship were editorial choices protected by the First Amendment, which generally prohibits government restrictions on speech based on content and viewpoint. The groups said that social media companies were entitled to the same constitutional protections enjoyed by newspapers, which are generally free to publish what they like without government interference.

The states responded that internet platforms were common carriers required to transmit everyone’s messages and that the laws protected free speech by ensuring that users have access to many points of view.

Federal appeals courts reached conflicting conclusions in 2022 about the constitutionality of the two laws. A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit largely upheld a preliminary injunction blocking Florida’s law. But a divided three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed a lower court’s order blocking the Texas law.

The Biden administration supports the social media companies in the two cases, Moody v. NetChoice, No. 22-277, and NetChoice v. Paxton, No. 22-555.

The Supreme Court blocked the Texas law in 2022 while the case moved forward by a 5-to-4 vote, with an unusual coalition in dissent. The court’s three most conservative members — Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch — filed a dissent saying they would have let the law go into effect. Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, also dissented, though she did not join the dissent and gave no reasons of her own.

Quote

A ruling that tech platforms have no editorial discretion to decide what posts to allow would expose users to a greater variety of viewpoints but almost certainly amplify the ugliest aspects of the digital age, including hate speech and disinformation.

There was a Prairie View A&M professor (wat) talking about this on the local news this morning. Sounds to me like the snowflakes that get banned for being nazis on social media are big mad and this is the case that might let them continue being nazis. Not to mention just throwing the doors wide open for foreign interference. Again. Doesn't seem great.

bolverk · February 26

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

There was a Prairie View A&M professor (wat) talking about this on the local news this morning. Sounds to me like the snowflakes that get banned for being nazis on social media are big mad and this is the case that might let them continue being nazis. Not to mention just throwing the doors wide open for foreign interference. Again. Doesn't seem great.

Pretty much. Florida and Texas got big mad when Trump got banned.

This is what’s at stake in Monday’s arguments.

Social media companies braced for Supreme Court arguments on Monday whose outcome could fundamentally alter the way they police their sites.

After Facebook, Twitter and YouTube barred President Donald J. Trump in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, riots at the Capitol, Florida made it illegal for technology companies to ban from their sites a candidate for office in the state. Texas later passed its own law prohibiting platforms from taking down political content.

Two tech industry groups, NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, sued to block the laws from taking effect. They argued that the companies have the right to make decisions about their own platforms under the First Amendment, much as a newspaper gets to decide what runs in its pages.

The Supreme Court’s decision in those cases — Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton — is a big test of the power of social media companies, potentially reshaping millions of social media feeds by giving the government influence over how and what stays online.

“What’s at stake is whether they can be forced to carry content they don’t want to,” said Daphne Keller, a lecturer at Stanford Law School who filed a brief with the Supreme Court supporting the tech groups’ challenge to the Texas and Florida laws. “And, maybe more to the point, whether the government can force them to carry content they don’t want to.”

If the Supreme Court says the Texas and Florida laws are constitutional and they take effect, some legal experts speculate that the companies could create versions of their feeds specifically for those states. Still, such a ruling could usher in similar laws in other states, and it is technically complicated to accurately restrict access to a website based on location.

Critics of the laws say the feeds to the two states could include extremist content — from neo-Nazis, for example — that the platforms previously would have taken down for violating their standards. Or, the critics say, the platforms could ban discussion of anything remotely political by barring posts about many contentious issues.

wildcat09 · February 26

Texas and Florida will lose soundly, 6-3 or even 7-2 (Gorsuch is the unknown). The laws are horribly written and clearly unconstitutional. I guess I'm worried about what landmines Roberts leaves in a decision to exploit later, but I'm not sure he even will do that with this one. He'll probably just take some bullshit "Roberts shows the court can still be moderate!" stories and be happy.

Brisketexan · February 26

29 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Texas and Florida will lose soundly, 6-3 or even 7-2 (Gorsuch is the unknown). The laws are horribly written and clearly unconstitutional. I guess I'm worried about what landmines Roberts leaves in a decision to exploit later, but I'm not sure he even will do that with this one. He'll probably just take some bullshit "Roberts shows the court can still be moderate!" stories and be happy.

You're probably right. Or at least, you should be right. But....counterpoint....

yoladu · February 26

On 2/24/2024 at 5:24 PM, tx 3 putt said:

wait. how did this even happen?

oh, a pet of Ginni Thomas. Ginni and Thomas - the field of psychiatry hasn't terms for this relationship.

From Wiki:

Following her departure from Turning Point USA, Clanton had worked for Ginni Thomas,^[4] the Justice's wife, and had lived at the Thomas's house for a year. Ginni Thomas was a member of the Turning Point USA advisory council at the time of Clanton's departure.^[5]

Edited February 26 by yoladu

DDD Dad · February 26

19 minutes ago, yoladu said:

wait. how did this even happen?

oh, a pet of Ginni Thomas. Ginni and Thomas - the field of psychiatry hasn't terms for this relationship.

From Wiki:

Following her departure from Turning Point USA, Clanton had worked for Ginni Thomas,^[4] the Justice's wife, and had lived at the Thomas's house for a year. Ginni Thomas was a member of the Turning Point USA advisory council at the time of Clanton's departure.^[5]

That looks like a Domaine Romanee Conti Echezeaux. Those go for about $3K a bottle these days (on release). You know, the kind of wine that people of regular stock enjoy.

"YOU KNOW, I DON’T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH GOING TO EUROPE, BUT I PREFER THE UNITED STATES, AND I PREFER SEEING THE REGULAR PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES. I PREFER GOING ACROSS THE RURAL AREAS. I PREFER THE RV PARKS, AND I PREFER THE WALMART PARKING LOTS TO THE BEACHES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THERE’S SOMETHING NORMAL TO ME ABOUT IT. I COME FROM REGULAR STOCK, AND I PREFER THAT. I PREFER BEING AROUND THAT."

DDD Dad · February 26

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Texas and Florida will lose soundly, 6-3 or even 7-2 (Gorsuch is the unknown). The laws are horribly written and clearly unconstitutional. I guess I'm worried about what landmines Roberts leaves in a decision to exploit later, but I'm not sure he even will do that with this one. He'll probably just take some bullshit "Roberts shows the court can still be moderate!" stories and be happy.

HenryJames · February 27

Just the dumbest shit.

GopherRock · February 27

13 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Texas and Florida will lose soundly, 6-3 or even 7-2 (Gorsuch is the unknown). The laws are horribly written and clearly unconstitutional. I guess I'm worried about what landmines Roberts leaves in a decision to exploit later, but I'm not sure he even will do that with this one. He'll probably just take some bullshit "Roberts shows the court can still be moderate!" stories and be happy.

Never underestimate the ability of this Court to come up with the worst possible outcome.

chainsaw · February 27

13 hours ago, yoladu said:

wait. how did this even happen?

oh, a pet of Ginni Thomas. Ginni and Thomas - the field of psychiatry hasn't terms for this relationship.

From Wiki:

Following her departure from Turning Point USA, Clanton had worked for Ginni Thomas,^[4] the Justice's wife, and had lived at the Thomas's house for a year. Ginni Thomas was a member of the Turning Point USA advisory council at the time of Clanton's departure.^[5]

Let's see how long the "both sides" media covers this

Dnaguy · February 27

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

Just the dumbest shit.

Alito is getting more and more insufferable…. Which is saying something.

YGIFS · February 27

What the fuck? This is even weirder than Matt Gaetz adopting an adult cabana boy. The fuck with this simulation?

I can’t wait until her expense reports come out. Ginny, “sweetheart, we need some bread, milk, $3k wine, and all the Vaseline they have at the store. I’ll reimburse you from Turning Point PAC. Run along now…”

Pig Bellmont · February 27

16 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

What the fuck? This is even weirder than Matt Gaetz adopting an adult cabana boy. The fuck with this simulation?

I can’t wait until her expense reports come out. Ginny, “sweetheart, we need some bread, milk, $3k wine, and all the Vaseline they have at the store. I’ll reimburse you from Turning Point PAC. Run along now…”

Why would they be made public? Thats not the type of disclosures required by law, and the ones that are get broken regularly with no more consequences than a pro publica article and a “I thought this was allowed” statement. Then we all continue on this charade

jimmyjazz · February 27

24 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

Alito is getting more and more insufferable…. Which is saying something.

I haven't had my coffee yet -- wtf is his angle here?

Captainant · February 27

3 hours ago, HenryJames said:

Just the dumbest shit.

Holy shit a supreme Court Justice posts on surly! I've heard that argument alllllll over the place in defense of letting the fascists have the run of the joint

Leeroy Jenkins · February 27

He'll hire whomever Harlan tells him to hire.

tx 3 putt · February 27

2 hours ago, Dnaguy said:

Alito is getting more and more insufferable…. Which is saying something.

him and thomas need to take a titanic sub trip

tx 3 putt · February 28

This is a hell of a tax free gift …..

Satchel · February 28

Let’s get this ball rolling:

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/democrats-introduce-bill-to-expand-u-s-supreme-court/#:~:text=WASHINGTON%2C D.C. — On Tuesday%2C,from nine to 13 justices.

US Senate and House Democrats introduced a bill that would add four seats to the U.S. Supreme Court, bringing the bench from nine to 13 justices. The bill was introduced by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). The Judiciary Act was first introduced in 2021; a press release cites the growing support for court expansion in the intervening two years.

Today, the argument for an expanded Court has reemerged. “Republicans have hijacked the confirmation process and stolen the Supreme Court majority—all to appeal to far-right judicial activists who for years have wanted to wield the gavel to roll back fundamental rights,” Markey said in a press release. “Each scandal uncovered, each norm broken, each precedent-shattering ruling delivered is a reminder that we must restore justice and balance to the rogue, radical Supreme Court. It is time we expand the Court.”

Satchel · February 28

Now the SC has decided to hear the Trump’s immunity case. I guess the three judge panel’s rendering left something to be desired.

wildcat09 · February 28

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

Let’s get this ball rolling:

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/democrats-introduce-bill-to-expand-u-s-supreme-court/#:~:text=WASHINGTON%2C D.C. — On Tuesday%2C,from nine to 13 justices.

US Senate and House Democrats introduced a bill that would add four seats to the U.S. Supreme Court, bringing the bench from nine to 13 justices. The bill was introduced by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). The Judiciary Act was first introduced in 2021; a press release cites the growing support for court expansion in the intervening two years.

Today, the argument for an expanded Court has reemerged. “Republicans have hijacked the confirmation process and stolen the Supreme Court majority—all to appeal to far-right judicial activists who for years have wanted to wield the gavel to roll back fundamental rights,” Markey said in a press release. “Each scandal uncovered, each norm broken, each precedent-shattering ruling delivered is a reminder that we must restore justice and balance to the rogue, radical Supreme Court. It is time we expand the Court.”

Need to revise this to add fucking thirty.

Brisketexan · February 28

4 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Now the SC has decided to hear the Trump’s immunity case. I guess the three judge panel’s rendering left something to be desired.

That thing being "making Trump an untouchable king."

We were founded as a rebellion against absolute monarchy. It's only fitting that our final act of self-immolation will be the installation of an absolute monarchy.

Biff Tannen · February 28

12 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Now the SC has decided to hear the Trump’s immunity case. I guess the three judge panel’s rendering left something to be desired.

NEAT

this is fine

DDD Dad · February 28

17 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Now the SC has decided to hear the Trump’s immunity case. I guess the three judge panel’s rendering left something to be desired.

Chuckie Finster · February 28

Eager for all the smart lawyer brains to tell me, a stupid person, why this actually is to be expected.

Our courts were not designed to handle a man like Trump.

The Original Greaser Bob · February 28

The Supreme Court is going to copy the Appeals Court's work, tweak it just enough to make it look like their work, but in doing this will give Trump at least a month of delay.

Stilicho · February 28

2 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

The Supreme Court is going to copy the Appeals Court's work, tweak it just enough to make it look like their work, but in doing this will give Trump at least a month of delay.

This is the take I've seen the most. Doesn't really make me feel better though.

Brandywine · February 28

2 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

The Supreme Court is going to copy the Appeals Court's work, tweak it just enough to make it look like their work, but in doing this will give Trump at least a month of delay.

At least. He will get away with all of it and the SC will have blood on their hands.

Js1 · February 28

4 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

The Supreme Court is going to copy the Appeals Court's work, tweak it just enough to make it look like their work, but in doing this will give Trump at least a month of delay.

Yep they certainly weren’t going to let the Appeals Court have THE final say on this. Enshrine it into the books

BrickHorn · February 28

“This reasonable gun regulation would deny Americans the time-honored ignorance defense,” notes moron.

Edited February 28 by BrickHorn

Hugo Stiglitz · February 28

So after this fails, are the Trump people going to challenge the existence of laws? And will we need weeks/months for multiple courts to verify that yes, laws do in fact exist.

This system is corrupt as fuck.

Red Five · February 28

When Ford pardoned Nixon, did anyone say "Why on Earth did he waste time doing that? Everyone knows that a sitting President can't commit crimes, because they have total immunity"?

Longhorn94 · February 28

if they say yes, he has complete immunity as all presidents do. then i suggest big joe biden flexes and just cancels the election, imprisons trump for whatever he wants, dismisses the court, and generally goes on a rampage as a newly crowned king of america. this shit is just stupid.

GopherRock · February 28

Also, April 22 is considered expedited?

Chuckie Finster · February 28

3 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

Also, April 22 is considered expedited?

"Y'all are lucky it's even in 2024!" - Sam Alito, probably

PenelopeWitherspoon · February 28

If Roberts wants the court to have any shred of legitimacy, he forces Clarence to recuse himself and forces the others to vote 8-0 that no, there is no such thing as Presidential immunity.

Edited February 28 by PenelopeWitherspoon

4th&Five · February 28

2 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

If Robert’s wants the court to have any shred of legitimacy, he forces Clarence to recuse himself and forces the others to vote 8-0 that no, there is no such thing as Presidential immunity.

hornmpa96 · February 28

Should I be concerned with the Court’s order which mentions reviewing Presidential Immunity for alleged official acts?

Can they just assume his actions were official and therefore grant immunity?

Given the falsehoods utilized to support other decisions of this Court, I have no confidence they get to the right decision here.

Ghost of LL · February 28

59 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

The Supreme Court is going to copy the Appeals Court's work, tweak it just enough to make it look like their work, but in doing this will give Trump at least a month of delay.

I think this is the high likelihood.

31 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

Also, April 22 is considered expedited?

In all honesty, yeah.

pacman · February 28

35 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

if they say yes, he has complete immunity as all presidents do. then i suggest big joe biden flexes and just cancels the election, imprisons trump for whatever he wants, dismisses the court, and generally goes on a rampage as a newly crowned king of america. this shit is just stupid.

It is always odd to me these far right dumbasses never see the other side of the coin with their bullshit. I guess they assume Democrats are too pussy to pull something like this off.

BehoId, The Underminer! · February 28

1 minute ago, hornmpa96 said:

Should I be concerned with the Court’s order which mentions reviewing Presidential Immunity for alleged official acts?

Can they just assume his actions were official and therefore grant immunity?

Given the falsehoods utilized to support other decisions of this Court, I have no confidence they get to the right decision here.

I find it weird too. What could they possibly do? Say “yes there is immunity for official acts, and we remand to determine whether this is one?” That’s weak.

NYT points out part of the state’s brief that’s interesting.

Quote

Mr. Smith echoed the point, citing the officials’ brief. “A sufficient basis for resolving this case would be that, whatever the rule in other contexts not presented here,” he wrote, “no immunity attaches to a president’s commission of federal crimes to subvert the electoral process.”

That seems like an easy way to resolve it that relies on the same themes Trump is using. The Constitution provides a check on the presidency through impeachment. It also provides it through elections. No immunity for things that affect those.

tx 3 putt · February 29

1 hour ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

The Supreme Court is going to copy the Appeals Court's work, tweak it just enough to make it look like their work, but in doing this will give Trump at least a month of delay.

Js1 · February 29

13 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Satchel · February 29

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

If Roberts wants the court to have any shred of legitimacy, he forces Clarence to recuse himself and forces the others to vote 8-0 that no, there is no such thing as Presidential immunity.

Harlan is not going to allow Clarence to recuse. He’s too useful.

Hookah Horns · February 29

THIS IS FUCKING BULLSHIT

FUCK THE COURT

AND FUCK YOU TOO, MERRICK, YOU POKY PUSSY

South Austin · February 29

1 hour ago, pacman said:

It is always odd to me these far right dumbasses never see the other side of the coin with their bullshit. I guess they assume Democrats are too pussy to pull something like this off.

Narrator: They are.

tx 3 putt · February 29

Bozo_Casanova · February 29

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

So after this fails, are the Trump people going to challenge the existence of laws?

Bind, not protect. Protect, not bind.

Sign In

The Supremes

Recommended Posts

wildcat09 29346

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Brisketexan

Ghost of LL

sidis

Posted Images

Zonahorn 8079

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Biff Tannen 45665

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bolverk 29655

Link to comment

Share on other sites

wildcat09 29346

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Brisketexan 105066

Link to comment

Share on other sites

yoladu 4090

Link to comment

Share on other sites

DDD Dad 14325

Link to comment

Share on other sites

DDD Dad 14325

Link to comment

Share on other sites

HenryJames 66038

Link to comment

Share on other sites

GopherRock 1765

Link to comment

Share on other sites

chainsaw 9857

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dnaguy 11920

Link to comment

Share on other sites

YGIFS 19449

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Pig Bellmont 8712

Link to comment

Share on other sites

jimmyjazz 45888

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Captainant 27637

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Leeroy Jenkins 2402

Link to comment

Share on other sites

tx 3 putt 76870

Link to comment

Share on other sites

tx 3 putt 76870

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Satchel 6931

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Satchel 6931

Link to comment

Share on other sites

wildcat09 29346

Link to comment