Posted On: Thursday - June 27th 2024 9:30AM MST
In Topics: TV, aka Gov't Media US Police State Media Stupidity US Feral Government Morning Constitutional
For nearly half a year now, one of Peak Stupidity's main go-to sites for news and blogging material has been The Gateway Pundit*. It is a pretty big deal that Jim Hoft, the founder/proprietor/editor of that site, was one of 7 plaintiffs in a case headed to the US Supreme Court. This is or maybe WAS, now, an important Amendment I case. Various officials of the US Feral Gov't have been influencing, indirect threats being involved, the inclusion or lack thereof, of news posts, tweets, what-have-you by BIG "TECH". This is direct Feral Gov't censorship, prohibited by Amendment I thusly:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;Perhaps the confusion is that no laws were made - the Feral Gov't just did the kind of thing the Founders were worried about? I guess they didn't foresee their brainchild as turning into the huge beast it is now. Now it's "Laws? Laws?! We don't need no steeeenking laws!" Anyway, obviously the officials and organizations involved are in, or at least using, power unConstitutionally. This case is obvious
Missouri v Dark Brandon (our post on this matter) was not the actual name of the case, but I'd read it was Missouri v Biden. For whatever reason**, it's now Murthy v Missouri. That SCOTUS blog*** page definitely shows the same case. Murthy is Vivek H. Murthy, apparently the Surgeon General right now, and he's listed as a Petitioner here with a ton of other US Executive branch muckety-mucks. Even the bug-eyed Jean-Pierre is listed.) These "Petitioners", I must assume, were petitioning for the dropping of the case and injunction rulings that have been made out of it.
Peak Stupidity may well have missed this, and at some point I thought it must have been heard by now - I have not seen a GP post on the matter though, even now. Well, bad news has come for Jim Hoft and his org, along with the other 6 plaintiffs, and along with America.. The case was not decided in the negative, but the SCROTUS has denied it a hearing based on lack of "standing". The phrase "Article III standing" was used. Article III is simply the description of the duties of the Judicial Branch. ctrl-f for "standing" gets no matches.
Just what the hell is "standing", some may ask. I get the general idea, so I'll give the definition in my head before excerpting a proper definition: Lack of standing means that the plaintiffs have not themselves been wronged by the alleged unConstitutionality specified in their petition. Therefore, it's not for them to bring up such a case. Well, now I'm having a hard time getting that proper definition, so let me just paste in an excerpt from this blog, which is specific to the world of the SCROTUS:
Standing is a legal term which determines whether the party bringing the lawsuit has the right to do so. Standing is not about the issues, it’s about who is bringing the lawsuit and whether they a legal right to sue.There are examples, but still, that doesn't really help so much. I suppose I should read the words of the 6 justices that voted to throw the case out. Says the SCOTUS=blog in its info from yesterday:
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Barrett on June 26, 2024. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined.Peak Stupidity is no kind of fan on Reason magazine (due to the general idiotic stance for open borders), but they know their Constitutional stuff. One Jonathan Adler on the Volokh Conspiracy page/column explains the deal pretty well. Basically, Justice Barrett says that the plaintiffs didn't connect the dots well enough, aka, didn't do their homework, and the SCROTUS ain't got time for this shit. (She didn't use that exact wording.) The dissent by Justice Alito compared this stricter view of "standing" to some other cases.
I don't know - the Peak Stupidity Legal Dept. won't help either - all they care about is our not getting sued and their standing in their suit against HR for more sick time.
So, this one was not an actual loss, but the ruling means that those being censored must prove more clearly that the Government is coercing (and often in cahoots with) Big "TECH" to censor Conservative opinion. We already know this. We also already know that political solutions will not get us out of this. The solution is going to take a lot of "standing", standing up in the face of evil rather than sitting in court.
* See also our Addendum to that website review.
** I believe the reason is that this case is actually the Gov't as plaintiff against the (favorable) decisions made by the lower (5th Circuit) court.
*** I like that site. The cases have listings of all "actions" - rulings, argument dates, etc - taken since they were brought up.
Comments:
Moderator
Thursday - June 27th 2024 1:58PM MST
PS: That's good to hear, Alarmist. I didn't spend so much time on this story, but at least more than the headlines. (Often they would lead one to believe that the plaintiffs lost this case.)
The Alarmist
Thursday - June 27th 2024 1:54PM MST
PS
Alito noted the case would likely be before SCOTUS again. Hopefully the dots will be better connected.
Alito noted the case would likely be before SCOTUS again. Hopefully the dots will be better connected.