I think that was a cover story for what really happened (in my twisted imagination).
Roberts showed the new justices a tape of the Scalia murder and said, "This is what happened to Scalia. You go along with the globalists' agenda or it'll happen to you, too. Any questions?"
I think John Roberts could jack off next to you on a public park bench, and if the next day CNN ran a story saying it didn't happen, you would delete the experience from your brain like a good brainwashed zombie.
Or..... just like Lynn Wood's insane statements, Supreme Court Justices have an obligation not to get involved in any scandal by responding to them. I honestly don't know what happened, and unless you were there - neither do you.
Right. Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito were straight on the election fraud, so why would the other crooks do the right thing on this issue?
And it's not as "breaking" as clickbait Jack is saying. He said that it is quite difficult to apply existing legislation to the unprecedented amount of power private companies have in controlling speech.
Nothing on the docket right now that I can see that applies to 230.
-however-
Thomas released this opinion* in reaction* to the Court making moot the lawsuit against Trump, as he's now a private citizen, and told the appeals court to rule it moot, as well. He's agreeing with the decision. You should read it, it's a good read.
The bigger points are two:
One, this case failed to establish a standard on this issue - so now the fraud can have people blocked/banned on the WH account, or his own, and people can take it to court, and they can re-try the case. The slate is cleared now, on the issue. This is potentially bad, as our current judicial system will not rule against the fraud, like they did for Trump.
Two, he's basically standing up and shouting, waving a big red flag at Congress, telling them how to go after these companies and remove 230 protections. This should be good, but looking at the current Congress, nothing will happen. Much like Rudy tried to teach the GOP how to win against the fraud, this will fall on deaf ears, sadly.
The ending paragraph is the key:
"The Second Circuit feared that then-President Trump cut off speech by using the features that Twitter made available to him. But if the aim is to ensure that speech is not smoth- ered, then the more glaring concern must perforce be the dominant digital platforms themselves. As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms. The extent to which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important questions. This petition, unfortunately, affords us no opportunity to confront them."
Thomas is going a little rogue here, but it's needed. Roberts is probably cussing a storm over this opinion, as is Congress and the big tech companies. Thomas wants to dig into the issue of how much power these companies have, but nobody else wants to go near it - because it would kick a leg out from under Democrats.
We have three justices that are Constitutionalists, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Kavanaugh and Barrett are scared that people will be mean to their children if they side with our Constitution. Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer hate our Constitution. We The People, our nation, our Constitution are in trouble.
1 of 43 if Biden gets his way... or if the swamp puts a crayon in Biden’s hand and wiggles his elbow to make him sign. “Sign it and you’ll get pudding!”
A court "finds" facts in a case before applying the law to those facts to reach a holding. So courts both "find" and "hold." Source: me after decades of practicing law.
Exhibit A of the pathetic "wins" of the right that amount to nothing. You are not fighting anything. You are just here to get your dopamine social media fix, you obviously care nothing for actual results.
It's true. It's just Justice Thomas' opinion. It's not a decision or a change in law. No precedent has been set. He states at the end of his opinion that the matter is worth exploring but unfortunately does not fall under the purview of that particular case.
This is clickbait even for Poso. I read the opinion. Not only does it not find what he says here, but Thomas EXPLICITLY says that issue isn't at stake in the case they are considering.
The Thomas concurrence (i.e. not the actual controlling opinion) is basically walking through all the ways legislatures COULD control social media platforms as common carriers or public accommodations. Its intended to guide conservative lawmakers into drafting laws that would actually regulate them. He does not say companies have no first amendment rights or that they can't regulate speech. He also does not say 230 is unconstitutional. All he says is that it's odd that social media has been given a gift of immunity under Section 230, but hasn't also been given the heightened responsibilities that companies who normally get those types of immunity get (i.e. common carriers).
All he says is that it's odd that social media has been given a gift of immunity under Section 230, but hasn't also been given the heightened responsibilities that companies who normally get those types of immunity get (i.e. common carriers).
Which is actually a much more based opinion than the sensationalized headline.
basically, why are these people being protected from the law?
Yeah I'm not saying its a bad opinion. Clarence Thomas is one of the only people in the world actually putting serious thought into this issue and making good suggestions. Its just not what Poso said it was.
If the government has created protecting from the law for these companies, then these companies monopoly and power in our society is de facto created by the government. Then that means that the government have violated the constitution and human rights by violating our free speech rights by proxy using government backed private companies.
There are actually a few companies that have special rights in law. Some are the result of treaties, others are just legislative gifts to once-popular institutions.
The Red Cross has a legislatively-created trademark (which is why so many video games have had to move to green crosses on health items) as well as the Boy Scouts and I think a few other organizations from what I recall. The baseball leagues and some others as well are immune to anti-trust laws, etc. You can look it up on Justia if you're curious.
Honestly, most of those special rights don't sit well with me, though some of them don't seem to matter very much in the end. In particular, I don't really like giving special rights to the MLB when it's gone anti-American and I would like to see that right removed from the books as some had proposed after what happened in Georgia.
It's a long ass opinion but from what I can glean, and I'm definitely not a lawyer, it's Justice Thomas' opinion and not a decision based on this last paragraph of his disposition:
The Second Circuit feared that then-President Trump cut off speech by using the features that Twitter made available to him. But if the aim is to ensure that speech is not smothered, then the more glaring concern must perforce be the dominant digital platforms themselves. As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms. The extent to which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important questions. This petition, unfortunately, affords us no opportunity to confront them.
This was a concurring opinion in the case where Trump was ordered by the 2nd circuit to unban some people from his twitter. Basically, Trump left office (and his account was banned before that by Twitter) so the case is moot and so the SCOTUS kicked it back to the 2nd circuit and told them to dismiss as moot.
But Thomas wrote his own opinion basically opining on the related, but not at-issue topic of digital platforms and how they can be regulated. This has no legal force, but lays out some great thinking by one of the smartest jurists alive today on how to tackle this issue. Ideally some smart lawyers will use this as a roadmap to find the right plaintiff and bring a case against twitter under the common carrier/public accommodation theories Thomas has laid out here.
It's basically Thomas took it as an opportunity to get his opinion out there with some ideas on how to fix it so we all know where he stands. Still requires a case or legislative change for it to mean anything
Edit:
*SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas authors dissenting opinion against biased court finding that social media companies - and not other companies as cited in Citizen's United - do not have First Amendment right to ban protected speech and that Section 230 is unconstitutional."
Just before he released this ruling the supreme court threw out Laura Loomers lawsuit against Google, Facebook and Big Tech re them cancelling her and other citizens.
SCOTUS had the chance to take action but instead they chose not to as usual, then talked......as usual.
"FUK" JOE BIDEN AND THE 2-3 MILLON PEOPLE WHO VOTED THIS SHITBAG OF A HUMAN INTO OFFICE. By the Grace of God these 4 years will be so horrible that every American will realize how these corrupt bastards got into office. I will take God & Trump in 2024
Every one of those piece of shit justices are spineless cowards or outright corrupt pieces of shit. SCOTUS needs to be cleansed of the filth. Bring in people who actually care about this country
You've entirely missed the point, now that everything went their way they're free to quit the company and receive their payoff government positions. If winning an election every 4 years only cost one or two major corporations how would that not be worth the investment? This came late just as intended, everything that needs to be done was saved for after Trump was robbed because if the plan had failed they would have left it in place.
Why isn't this man the lead of the Supreme Court (I cant remember the official title) and even more importantly, why aren't there more men like this? It even seems more women are more vocal than men about all the BS thats going on in politics and with the masks and lockdowns. Where has men's leadership gone? Too many of us in a fallen state and weak.
ANTIFA needs to be confronted by a well organized militia the next time they go crazy and destroy our country. Obviously police are allowing them to abuse our nation and it needs to stop.
He's only got to get four more justices to agree and then it's worth talking about.
"We gotta abdicate our power because Antifa might burn some buildings."
There's absolutely no spinal constitution in the SCOUTS.
SCROTUS
Sniveling Cowards Reneging on the United States? :D
Nailed it!
"Cowards"
More like complicit traitors.
Complicit faggots too.
Supreme Court Retards of Taint Underneath Sack
BASED
The Supreme Court is the one place the Constitution doesn't mean shit, except whatever they want it to mean.
If we're unhappy with their interpretation, we must invoke the natural rights of men.
I'm not sure that John Roberts story actually happened. Scream SCOTUS justices don't seem like a likely scenario.
What John Roberts story? All I saw was SCOTUS cucking and refusing to hear any cases. What alternate reality do you live in?
Not sure on the source, but this was the gist of it:
https://www.nationandstate.com/2020/12/18/supreme-court-responds-to-claims-that-roberts-screamed-at-other-justices-over-texas-election-lawsuit/
I think that was a cover story for what really happened (in my twisted imagination).
Roberts showed the new justices a tape of the Scalia murder and said, "This is what happened to Scalia. You go along with the globalists' agenda or it'll happen to you, too. Any questions?"
I think John Roberts could jack off next to you on a public park bench, and if the next day CNN ran a story saying it didn't happen, you would delete the experience from your brain like a good brainwashed zombie.
Show me exactly where that article denies that Roberts stated what was publicly claimed.
Why have enemies when we got retarded friends like you?
Pro tip: If they don’t outright deny that something took place, it did in-fact take place.
In this case it was overheard in the building because people were on a zoom call with Roberts whining like a girl.
Pro-Tip. If you can't prove your innocence, you are guilty. So, accusations are convictions now? Yeah, no fuck that and fuck off.
I’m not the one falling head over heels for a fake “fact check” which literally stated nothing of relevance or importance.
Stay retarded.
Or..... just like Lynn Wood's insane statements, Supreme Court Justices have an obligation not to get involved in any scandal by responding to them. I honestly don't know what happened, and unless you were there - neither do you.
Really? Because you literally linked an article that purported to state what in fact did happen.
Like I said:
Yeah well SCOTUS not doing shit during the stolen election did happen
Right. Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito were straight on the election fraud, so why would the other crooks do the right thing on this issue?
I’m sure it did.
Find me the article which “debunked” it.
All it actually said was that Roberts wasn’t in the building that day.
“Debunk” article said nothing about Roberts complaining remotely on a zoom call which took place and everyone heard.
Find your own article. You argue like a leftie., expecting other people to do your homework for you. Chump.
Was already linked.
It said exactly what I stated.
Fake fact check.
Shill got caught so all he has left is to create a scene.
They didn’t say that. Stop being a moron.
Shilling for SCOTUS. You must like getting pegged too.
You're right about a lot of things, but you're also a thoroughly unpleasant asshole. Are you a lawyer, perhaps?
Bunch of dumbfucks here. It's getting embarrassing how they circle jerk over stupidity. It is nearly as bad as fake news comment section.
Whether or not the Chief Justice was screaming is not a legal issue.
I think most people here know what standing is.
Why would you bring up “standing” in response to me responding to you not knowing the difference between a legal issue and a factual issue?
No shit, Sherlock
From what I understand, this could be a signal that the SCOTUS may be prepping to review section 230 law.
SCOTUS judges don't just release statements whenever they want; there's usually a reason.
That’s kind of a bummer.
And it's not as "breaking" as clickbait Jack is saying. He said that it is quite difficult to apply existing legislation to the unprecedented amount of power private companies have in controlling speech.
Nothing on the docket right now that I can see that applies to 230.
-however-
Thomas released this opinion* in reaction* to the Court making moot the lawsuit against Trump, as he's now a private citizen, and told the appeals court to rule it moot, as well. He's agreeing with the decision. You should read it, it's a good read. The bigger points are two: One, this case failed to establish a standard on this issue - so now the fraud can have people blocked/banned on the WH account, or his own, and people can take it to court, and they can re-try the case. The slate is cleared now, on the issue. This is potentially bad, as our current judicial system will not rule against the fraud, like they did for Trump. Two, he's basically standing up and shouting, waving a big red flag at Congress, telling them how to go after these companies and remove 230 protections. This should be good, but looking at the current Congress, nothing will happen. Much like Rudy tried to teach the GOP how to win against the fraud, this will fall on deaf ears, sadly.
The ending paragraph is the key:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-197_5ie6.pdf
Thomas is going a little rogue here, but it's needed. Roberts is probably cussing a storm over this opinion, as is Congress and the big tech companies. Thomas wants to dig into the issue of how much power these companies have, but nobody else wants to go near it - because it would kick a leg out from under Democrats.
He did it by being extraordinarily clever.
He and Alito were the only ones who wanted to do something about the fraud
Heh, see ya then.
And....... 0
Okay he’s 1 of 9
So what
Can we convince Elon Musk to put the cat girls on hold to make 8 clones of Justice Thomas?
This is where I draw the line, I'm afraid. We are NOT putting the cat girls on hold.
Let's compromise.
Cat girls, but with the legal acumen of Clarence Thomas.
8 Clarence Thomas cat girls
Lol
xD
lol
We have three justices that are Constitutionalists, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Kavanaugh and Barrett are scared that people will be mean to their children if they side with our Constitution. Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer hate our Constitution. We The People, our nation, our Constitution are in trouble.
Where are you getting Gorsuch from? He sided with the rest in not even wanting to hear about election fraud.
1 of 43 if Biden gets his way... or if the swamp puts a crayon in Biden’s hand and wiggles his elbow to make him sign. “Sign it and you’ll get pudding!”
Pointless sticky. Means nothing.
Many are. But a little hope can help some people out
What good is screengrab sharing opinion without some guidance in the comments? Top comments are boosted. This place is turning into Reddit.
Blackpill much?
No, I'm just not a retard. This is disingenuously worded. Its his opinion. His sole opinion. It was not a ruling as thos tweet reads.
"Get bent commies! 1 out of 9 SCOTUS have the same opinion as we do!!!!"
A court "finds" facts in a case before applying the law to those facts to reach a holding. So courts both "find" and "hold." Source: me after decades of practicing law.
Even if what you were saying was true, which it's not... 95% of people haven't taken law 101...
pretentious cuck indeed lol
You stand out as a moron. You win Moron of the Thread.
The other guy conned you. Because you are a mindless npc. And it is your fault for that.
What happens when the judge finds someone guilty? It isn't an official ruling? Use your brain
It's not blackpilled. It's a statement of fact.
Whatev. It's doomcrying "Pointless Sticky" etc.
Literally an embrace of contraspeak.
Either get into the positve side of it and make change or sit the fuck down, child.
Exhibit A of the pathetic "wins" of the right that amount to nothing. You are not fighting anything. You are just here to get your dopamine social media fix, you obviously care nothing for actual results.
This post isn't highlighting a win. Anyone treating as one is a complete idiot. It's not a loss it an opinion for legislation.
Fuck off handshake.
What’s the point in being naively positive ?
It's true. It's just Justice Thomas' opinion. It's not a decision or a change in law. No precedent has been set. He states at the end of his opinion that the matter is worth exploring but unfortunately does not fall under the purview of that particular case.
Nobody said a precedent was set you whiny cuck
Okie Dokie. You're not very pleasant for a Great Grandma.
This place is full of fake ass American First accounts working this place to set up losses and demoralize.
This is clickbait even for Poso. I read the opinion. Not only does it not find what he says here, but Thomas EXPLICITLY says that issue isn't at stake in the case they are considering.
The Thomas concurrence (i.e. not the actual controlling opinion) is basically walking through all the ways legislatures COULD control social media platforms as common carriers or public accommodations. Its intended to guide conservative lawmakers into drafting laws that would actually regulate them. He does not say companies have no first amendment rights or that they can't regulate speech. He also does not say 230 is unconstitutional. All he says is that it's odd that social media has been given a gift of immunity under Section 230, but hasn't also been given the heightened responsibilities that companies who normally get those types of immunity get (i.e. common carriers).
Which is actually a much more based opinion than the sensationalized headline.
basically, why are these people being protected from the law?
Yeah I'm not saying its a bad opinion. Clarence Thomas is one of the only people in the world actually putting serious thought into this issue and making good suggestions. Its just not what Poso said it was.
I figured that you agreed.
I was just clarifying a bit.
If the government has created protecting from the law for these companies, then these companies monopoly and power in our society is de facto created by the government. Then that means that the government have violated the constitution and human rights by violating our free speech rights by proxy using government backed private companies.
I agree.
Monopolies are created by the government.
But this site plays by the rules of the law as best it can from what I can tell.
The sites in question do not, and yet they still retain the protections although they do not live up to the agreement of the law in good faith.
?
You're still missing the point.
I didn't say it should be appealed.
The problem is that the law is not applied to every organization evenly.
That's also what Thomas is saying.
There are actually a few companies that have special rights in law. Some are the result of treaties, others are just legislative gifts to once-popular institutions.
The Red Cross has a legislatively-created trademark (which is why so many video games have had to move to green crosses on health items) as well as the Boy Scouts and I think a few other organizations from what I recall. The baseball leagues and some others as well are immune to anti-trust laws, etc. You can look it up on Justia if you're curious.
Uneven application of the law is the point here.
Honestly, most of those special rights don't sit well with me, though some of them don't seem to matter very much in the end. In particular, I don't really like giving special rights to the MLB when it's gone anti-American and I would like to see that right removed from the books as some had proposed after what happened in Georgia.
I agree.
MLB should not have an antitrust exemption.
No one should.
Posobiec's never sold us vaporware before tho!
I 'member:
https://patriots.win/p/11PVyPbFv1/why-do-we-keep-boosting-this-guy/c/
Line to opinion or case name?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101320zor_8m58.pdf
page 20
It's a long ass opinion but from what I can glean, and I'm definitely not a lawyer, it's Justice Thomas' opinion and not a decision based on this last paragraph of his disposition:
This was a concurring opinion in the case where Trump was ordered by the 2nd circuit to unban some people from his twitter. Basically, Trump left office (and his account was banned before that by Twitter) so the case is moot and so the SCOTUS kicked it back to the 2nd circuit and told them to dismiss as moot.
But Thomas wrote his own opinion basically opining on the related, but not at-issue topic of digital platforms and how they can be regulated. This has no legal force, but lays out some great thinking by one of the smartest jurists alive today on how to tackle this issue. Ideally some smart lawyers will use this as a roadmap to find the right plaintiff and bring a case against twitter under the common carrier/public accommodation theories Thomas has laid out here.
It's basically Thomas took it as an opportunity to get his opinion out there with some ideas on how to fix it so we all know where he stands. Still requires a case or legislative change for it to mean anything
Poso has always been a trash journalist. idk how he's at OANN.
This is false. He's wrong. The statement lays out why it might be unconstitutional, but does not actually offer a ruling on it. Misleading af.
OK great... Now let's repeal it.
Imagine if we had an actual justice system in This country that cared about the constitution and truth and the people.
But muh feelings!
So? What's he going to do about it?
Nothing, as usual.
You're just a doomer. Trust duh plan. Any day now!!!
Write a strongly worded letter.
These shills work for the left. Mods are faggots.
"No standing...." -The rest
Yeah, no. They didn't rule on standing.
Either read the opinion and provide salient feedback, or shut the fuck up.
I'm so sick of pedes on this board making ignorant-ass shit like this cloud the issue. This is how nothing changes .
Edit: *SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas authors dissenting opinion against biased court finding that social media companies - and not other companies as cited in Citizen's United - do not have First Amendment right to ban protected speech and that Section 230 is unconstitutional."
CT being an OG
Don't take any vacations on Texas ranches any time soon! (like Scalia)
Can we please get 8 more Clarence Thomases?
Just before he released this ruling the supreme court threw out Laura Loomers lawsuit against Google, Facebook and Big Tech re them cancelling her and other citizens.
SCOTUS had the chance to take action but instead they chose not to as usual, then talked......as usual.
It has no legal bearing because it was just his opinion
This.
hes a genius that should/should have been president rather than faggot Obama
Breaking: Thomas is not the majority of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has let us down so many times. I just don’t have any faith in them anymore.
Holy based
"FUK" JOE BIDEN AND THE 2-3 MILLON PEOPLE WHO VOTED THIS SHITBAG OF A HUMAN INTO OFFICE. By the Grace of God these 4 years will be so horrible that every American will realize how these corrupt bastards got into office. I will take God & Trump in 2024
FUCK BIG TECH!!!
Every one of those piece of shit justices are spineless cowards or outright corrupt pieces of shit. SCOTUS needs to be cleansed of the filth. Bring in people who actually care about this country
now... enforce it... just like you do gun laws
hollow.
at least it's on the books, sort of... for now
You've entirely missed the point, now that everything went their way they're free to quit the company and receive their payoff government positions. If winning an election every 4 years only cost one or two major corporations how would that not be worth the investment? This came late just as intended, everything that needs to be done was saved for after Trump was robbed because if the plan had failed they would have left it in place.
Stay safe, based black SCOTUS justice. Remember Scalia.
BooYa!!!
He’s the only based judge. I love that dude
Hes never faced Big Tech. They will unleashed the hounds of hell on him.
Thomas should have been the Chief Justice. Once Trump is back he will be. And Roberts will be out in jail being gang raped.
Didn’t Alito tell PA to separate all ballots received after 8 PM? How’d that work out for us?
I love BASED Thomas, but we gotta hear from the other 4 RHINOS... Like they're going to sing the same tune...
Keep Clearance away from Killary...
Not quite what he said but it could lead to that. What does it matter though? Big tech will just ignore ot some more.
Let’s also not forget he was one of the 2 justices who were going to hear the Texas lawsuit against the swing states. Thomas has always been good.
Whoop dee doo, what about the rest of the Supreme dunces?
He also stated it was not actionable unless SOMEONE ACTUALLY FILED AN EFFING LAWSUIT.
Which requires that the lower courts don't squash those lawsuits.
Someone get this man a drink 🥃 on the house
Sound great. What's the next step?
1A to ban speech wtf that's the opposite of its intention
Why isn't this man the lead of the Supreme Court (I cant remember the official title) and even more importantly, why aren't there more men like this? It even seems more women are more vocal than men about all the BS thats going on in politics and with the masks and lockdowns. Where has men's leadership gone? Too many of us in a fallen state and weak.
What does this do for the small social media sites? Will they be on the hook?
SCOTUS is definitely someone's bitch.
ANTIFA needs to be confronted by a well organized militia the next time they go crazy and destroy our country. Obviously police are allowing them to abuse our nation and it needs to stop.
Based AF.
Fuck RGB if it wasn't for her we wouldn't even be debating this shit now.
Wet works incoming.
Strongly worded letter incoming!
Aw that's cute you think your govt and courts are real.
NOW PAY YOUR TAXES FAGGOT
So... 1 of 9?