The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled in favor of the Biden administration in a challenge to its alleged coordination with social media companies, saying that the states who sued the administration lacked standing.
The case, Murthy v. Missouri, stems from a lawsuit brought by state attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana that accused high-ranking government officials of working with giant social media companies “under the guise of combating misinformation” that ultimately led to censoring speech on topics that included Hunter Biden’s laptop, COVID-19 origins and the efficacy of face masks.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, said the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their challenge.
“The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the years-long communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social-media platforms, about different topics.”
The US supreme court has struck down a lower court ruling in the case of Murthy v Missouri, finding that the government’s communications with social media platforms about Covid-19 misinformation did not violate the first amendment. The court’s decision permits the government to call on tech companies to remove falsehoods and establishes boundaries around free speech online.
The court ruled 6-3 that the plaintiffs had no standing to bring the case against the Biden administration, with conservative justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissenting.
Any Catholic who from the start was not immediately suspicious of her and was actually praising her seriously lacks discernment. They are the types who got vaccinated. It was obvious from the start:
1. She has a hyphenated last name, like any feminist narcissist.
2. She adopted an African baby, like any celebrity narcissist.
3. She was a professor at liberal Notre Dame.
4. Instead of raising her kids from home, she ignores them and turns them over to the State so that she can slavishly work for the State.
At least she was smart enough to know that she would go to hell if she did not overturn Roe vs. Wade. But any Catholic with discernment could tell she would morph into a liberal on anything else.
Regarding your point 1: Everyone should just keep the name they were born with. Don’t you want to keep yours? And point 4: Elite (high IQ) women should pursue elite work (good nannies — and/or grannies and extended families — should exist for good reason). Otherwise agree.
Regarding pt 1: Adam named Eve. A wife takes the name of her husband to show she is under his authority.
4. If a woman chooses to have children, she has chosen to give up the flashy pursuits of the world. Her children have a right under natural law to have their mother at home, and it is her duty to care for them, not the nanny, not the granny.
1. CS Lewis once wrote something to the effect that you shouldn’t read books meant for adults if you can’t understand them. The Adam and Eve story is not meant literally. And a woman is no more under her husband’s “authority” than he is under hers. 4. Women with 130+ IQs should be enabled to pursue endeavors like medicine and law. Those are not flashy. Elitism is a wonderful thing, but by definition not for everyone. A woman who can only be in a very low level job might do better to stay home. A gifted woman should use the gifts God gave her. Grannies are also mothers, of course, and I’ve known some great nannies. FWIW, I have always thought it was weird when men go on about their “authority.”
Having worked in a female dominated profession, and observed women in management positions, and been in them myself, I disagree. On Genesis, it refers to Eve as Adam’s helper, not an equal with Adam. Eve was made from a rib taken from Adam. This indicates Eve being different from Adam, not made from the slime of the earth, as was Adam. Eve, woman, was created out of man, a dependent status. She could not have existed without him existing first. Women think, and behave differently from men. They are indirect, passive aggressive, cliquish, controlling, and manipulative. These characteristics work fine in the home domestic environment. In management or politics, they are disastrous. They are perfect for the corporate or government bureaucratic structure where there is little accountablility and “relationships” and turf are everything. Direct and non-manipulative people are targeted as “mean”, not “team players”, etc. Just pay attention to PTA moms, Girl Scout leaders, etc. It is all about advancing their own child and sandbagging someone else’s kid, or using other kids as a foil for their own. Can anyone seriously say that Hillary Clinton, Madeline Albright, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, Gretchen Whitmer, Jacinda Ardern are improvements over masculine leaders (assuming they are actually women)? Yes, many women have high IQs. Big deal. Many women are ambitious. That is fine, as long as their husbands and children don’t suffer for it, and the ambition is channelled properly…NOT managing other human beings than their own family. This statement “A woman who can only be in a very low level job might do better to stay home” is so insulting to homemakers, I can’t believe you posted it. Being a homemaker does not mean you are too stupid to do anything else, nor are “low-level jobs” without value. Rearing decent human beings is not easy. Keeping an orderly home is a full-time job, and done well, it is priceless. So much of our trouble as a people is women despising their proper role and domesticity.
SJH…could NOT agree with you more!!!…so very well stated and expressed.
And ‘Deborah’…keep talkin’ girlfriend….keep talkin’.
Women should not be in positions of power, much less judgment. That’s just how it is.
“The homemaker has the ultimate career. All other careers exist for one purpose only — and that is to support the ultimate career.” ~ G. K. Chesterton
16 She hath considered a field, and bought it: with the fruit of her hands she hath planted a vineyard. 17 She hath girded her loins with strength, and hath strengthened her arm. 18 She hath tasted and seen that her traffic is good: her lamp shall not be put out in the night. 19 She hath put out her hand to strong things, and her fingers have taken hold of the spindle. 20 She hath opened her hand to the needy, and stretched out her hands to the poor.
…
25 Strength and beauty are her clothing, and she shall laugh in the latter day.
26 She hath opened her mouth to wisdom, and the law of clemency is on her tongue.
Proverbs 31
Love the Valiant Woman.
I am not convinced that women were stay at home caretakers, not even in Medeival Europe. They worked in the fields and helped with farm work.
The field and farm were usually synonymous with their home. The field was either theirs or they lived within a commune of workers. The children were always close by. So, yes women still worked, and mothers gave rise to the ‘cottage’ industry, which was run from the home. Very different from the modern working woman.
Even in those “communes” (Fr. Cahill calls them something else), families had their own plots of land and rotated between working the “corporate” fields and their private fields. Each family had a guarantee of ownership of that property, in perpetuity, unless they didn’t have an heir to pass it to. So even THEN women’s primary responsibility was the home.
My medieval history professor was “feminist”. She presented us with the facts that the “sphere of influence” of women was in the home…and that is ONE reason why Medieval Europe was able to grow socially, economically, and politically, to the point that serfdom was unnecessary. Women conducted “cottage industries” that contributed to the household’s welfare, but didn’t work outside the home. It was never uncommon for women to work in the fields…until children were born, and they minimized that work to focus on the work or food preservation, etc.
Behind every successful Lord or estate was a woman who managed the household…to the point of directing the defenses of the estate. The home was well cared for, in general, until Martin Luther came around.
Not so much any more. And that’s a great thing.
So basically the plaintiffs need to be a class action by individuals and media who were censored, struck, demonitized or banned to have standing.
So, correct me if I’m wrong but it’s not that they said it didn’t violate the law but that the Plaintiff’s failed to correlate any injury to the behavior. I haven’t read this case at all so not sure how Missouri and Louisiana said they were injured. If not injured, then that’s where the lack of standing comes in. Generally won’t they adjust their filing and respond to SCOTUS?
Pretty much. It lacked standing, not merit.
As my uncle Louie was found of saying, ” Well scaddy waddy and call me shorty.”
And so we see that checks and balances on government are useless when the checks and balances are all part of government. Bad enough, even if we still actually had a government, instead of this occupation pretending to be legit..
Well, I guess the founders checks have bounced and the balances are tipped to the state’s favor.
As I said to my barber yesterday the Bill of Rights and the constitution are both as dead as the Norwegian Blue parrot on the Monty Python sketch.
“Bereft of life it rests in peace. It has drawn the great curtain and joined the choir invisible!”
It was Barrett who convinced Robert’s that Texas had no standing in its suit against Pennsylvania in 2020, a complete rejection of the Constitution, which called for a SCOTUS precisely for the purpose of a state’s grievances against other states to be heard. Texas had standing, as per the Constitution.
Correct and correct