Supreme Court of the United States

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

2 hours ago, Ann said:

Supreme Court allows work on contested natural gas pipeline to resume

The court’s decision greenlights approval of a section of the Mountain Valley Pipeline crossing federal land in Virginia.

 

The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed work on a natural gas pipeline crossing federal land in Virginia to resume over the objections of environmental groups.

 

The justices granted an emergency request filed by Mountain Valley Pipeline, meaning that final elements of the 303.5 mile pipeline running from the northwestern part of West Virginia to southern Virginia can be finished.

 

In doing so, the court blocked decisions by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, that prevented the project from moving forward. The appeals court intervened despite Congress including language in the recently enacted Fiscal Responsibility Act backed by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., that stripped courts of authority to review approval of the pipeline.

 

Construction of the pipeline is almost finished. The dispute before the Supreme Court was over a 3.5-mile stretch in the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia as well as several stream crossings outside the forest.

 

</snip>

 

Quote

The Biden administration filed a brief backing the pipeline.

 

 

Now how about the Keystone XL pipeline, you unbelievable &#%$ing hypocrites.  

[B-Man]

 

 

 

Truth.

 

Justice Alito has Stern Words for Sheldon Whitehouse and His Attempt to Grab Control of the Supreme Court

 

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito removed all doubt about how the US Supreme Court would respond to efforts by progressive politicians to dictate its internal workings. Alito said, “I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it, no provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period.”

 

Justice Alito says he voluntarily follows disclosure statutes that apply to lower-court judges and executive-branch officials; so do the other justices. But he notes that “Congress did not create the Supreme Court”—the Constitution did.

 

https://redstate.com/streiff/2023/07/29/justice-alito-has-stern-words-for-sheldon-whitehouse-and-his-attempt-to-grab-control-of-the-supreme-court-n784230

 

 

.

[Foxx]

Good thing in the long run?

 

BREAKING: Justice Alito has paused the order banning Biden officials from contacting tech platforms, that was set to kick in this coming Monday. The Justice Department asked SCOTUS to block the injunction while it files a formal petition for the justices to take up the case.

 

The MO & LA led lawsuit outlines how the Biden administration violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by pressuring companies like Facebook, Twitter (now X) and YouTube to remove content that questioned the 2020 election, Covid vaccines, criticism of government policy and agents of the state, and topics involving Hunter Biden’s laptop, much of which was revealed in Matt Taibbi’s Twitter files drop beginning in December of last year.

 

The lawsuit also suggests the administration threatened the platforms with antitrust enforcement and reforms to tech platforms’ liability shield (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act) if they didn’t comply with the government’s takedown requests.

 

As we saw with our own eyes in the Twitter Files, the Feds were meticulous in their efforts to avoid explicit or specific language regarding the implied threats, however, employees at the companies internally expressed fear of the looming consequences if they did not abide by the government’s draconian requests to censor Americans.

 

The Justice Department continues to insist there was no coercion— that is, beyond the private and public persuasion of companies by officials, naturally:

 

“Rather than any pattern of coercive threats backed by sanctions, the record reflects a back-and-forth in which the government and platforms often shared goals and worked together, sometimes disagreed, and occasionally became frustrated with one another, as all parties articulated and pursued their own goals and interests during an unprecedented pandemic,” they said in a statement.

 

In my opinion, no matter how they dodge the existence of a power dynamic and sidestep, dress up, & redirect their abuse of power, the US Government has categorically and unequivocally exerted influence over the speech and expression of the American people, by every measure.

 

From my perspective, Justice Alito’s pausing of this order demonstrates the Supreme Court’s interest in taking up what appears to be the largest organized violation of free speech to happen in America since the Seditious Libel Law under King George.

 

In the meantime, while I am optimistic about where this will all lead, I expect a double down on censorship, particularly on YouTube and Facebook, while the Feds retain the power to do so.

 

 

[Billsandhorns]

On 9/15/2023 at 12:39 PM, Foxx said:

Good thing in the long run?

 

BREAKING: Justice Alito has paused the order banning Biden officials from contacting tech platforms, that was set to kick in this coming Monday. The Justice Department asked SCOTUS to block the injunction while it files a formal petition for the justices to take up the case.

 

The MO & LA led lawsuit outlines how the Biden administration violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by pressuring companies like Facebook, Twitter (now X) and YouTube to remove content that questioned the 2020 election, Covid vaccines, criticism of government policy and agents of the state, and topics involving Hunter Biden’s laptop, much of which was revealed in Matt Taibbi’s Twitter files drop beginning in December of last year.

 

The lawsuit also suggests the administration threatened the platforms with antitrust enforcement and reforms to tech platforms’ liability shield (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act) if they didn’t comply with the government’s takedown requests.

 

As we saw with our own eyes in the Twitter Files, the Feds were meticulous in their efforts to avoid explicit or specific language regarding the implied threats, however, employees at the companies internally expressed fear of the looming consequences if they did not abide by the government’s draconian requests to censor Americans.

 

The Justice Department continues to insist there was no coercion— that is, beyond the private and public persuasion of companies by officials, naturally:

 

“Rather than any pattern of coercive threats backed by sanctions, the record reflects a back-and-forth in which the government and platforms often shared goals and worked together, sometimes disagreed, and occasionally became frustrated with one another, as all parties articulated and pursued their own goals and interests during an unprecedented pandemic,” they said in a statement.

 

In my opinion, no matter how they dodge the existence of a power dynamic and sidestep, dress up, & redirect their abuse of power, the US Government has categorically and unequivocally exerted influence over the speech and expression of the American people, by every measure.

 

From my perspective, Justice Alito’s pausing of this order demonstrates the Supreme Court’s interest in taking up what appears to be the largest organized violation of free speech to happen in America since the Seditious Libel Law under King George.

 

In the meantime, while I am optimistic about where this will all lead, I expect a double down on censorship, particularly on YouTube and Facebook, while the Feds retain the power to do so.

 

 

This administration has a history of ignoring court orders anyway. 

[devnull]

49 minutes ago, Billsandhorns said:

This administration has a history of ignoring court orders anyway. 

 

The Executive Branch adhering to Court Orders is fundamental to the Constitution, which the Biden Administration also has a history of ignoring

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

38 minutes ago, devnull said:

 

The Executive Branch adhering to Court Orders is fundamental to the Constitution, which the Biden Administration also has a history of ignoring

 

Gotta Protect Democracy.

[Foxx]

4 hours ago, Billsandhorns said:

This administration has a history of ignoring court orders anyway. 

Well, now the Supreme Court is going to hear the case, which, if justice is truly blind, should be a good thing.  We can only hope that it is expedited.

[Ann]

Nope, the "msm" isn't slanted at all.
 

[Foxx]

31 minutes ago, Ann said:

Nope, the "msm" isn't slanted at all.
 

Wait a minute... aren't conservative values mostly aligned with historical norms? Aren't progressive values about casting those historical norms to the curb?

[Foxx]

Chalk one up for the good guys.

 

US Supreme Court rebuffs long-shot candidate's bid to disqualify Trump in 2024

[Spartacus]

On 10/2/2023 at 7:33 PM, Foxx said:

Chalk one up for the good guys.

 

US Supreme Court rebuffs long-shot candidate's bid to disqualify Trump in 2024

instead of hiding behind "lack of standing"

the Court should have denounced all attempts to prevent Trump from running based on the "insurrection" legal theories 

[Alaska Darin]

I hope the USSC decides in favor of the plaintiffs and sends a message to all these Banana Republic MFers that they're gonna be held accountable for being scumbags to the citizens who pay their salaries.  Enough is enough.

 

 

[Foxx]

Wouldn't this require a constitutional convention?

 

[Cinga]

50 minutes ago, Foxx said:

Wouldn't this require a constitutional convention?

 

 

I side with Alito on this, There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the legislative branch to impose restrictions of any kind on another branch of government.

But I have to also admit, it would be hilarious if it passed into law then was thrown out as Unconstitutional 

[Foxx]

The Court Pauses

 

[Ann]

10 minutes ago, Foxx said:

The Court Pauses

 

Wouldn't a pause indicate they will overturn the current ban?
 

[Ann]

Yes, they can continue to coerce censorship
 

 

[Foxx]

14 minutes ago, Ann said:

Wouldn't a pause indicate they will overturn the current ban?
 

Of course the interpretation of the Court hearing the case can be interpreted in different ways but, I have seen many say that it is a good thing for the First Ammendment.

 

Of course, it gives the current administration carte blanche almost up until the next election. Certainly, through most of the election cycle anyways.

[Ann]

How is this not a conflict of interest?

(long thread)
 

 

[Billsandhorns]

22 minutes ago, Ann said:

How is this not a conflict of interest?

(long thread)
 

 

Because Democrat