We're a republic with democratically-elected representatives. Even the founders knew direct democracy was the tyranny of the majority. It was one of many things the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans (propagandized as "Anti-Federalists") agreed upon.
The OP I was replying to was impugning Alito's character, that he wouldn't have done anything. That's false. He wanted to hear the case, he and Thomas both voted that way. They were acting impartially in wanting to hear the arguments before granting relief. That's a reasonable thing for a judge to do.
AND THEY BOTH VOTED TO HEAR THE CASE
My comments have very little to do with the fact that 7 other Justices cucked out. It was all about defending Alito & Thomas.
Stop spreading false information. If you don't understand how lawsuits work, don't comment on them.
The Texas lawsuit asked for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. That's something that happens before the lawsuit is decided. An injunction or TRO can stop whatever's currently on-going until the lawsuit is decided.
All Alito was saying is he wouldn't have granted the relief right now based solely on the filing. He would've heard the case and decided what to do from there.
They don't pre-judge the case before they've heard it. This is normal legal language. Sometimes you get some relief from an injunction while the case proceeds, sometimes you don't.
They literally said they "express no other view on any other issue." You're wrong and you need to review more SCOTUS opinions and dissents. They're just saying they wouldn't do anything now. Texas asked for some immediate relief. They wouldn't have granted that right now. They would've heard the case first.
The relief is reasonable and found in law, but it scares me because it relies on the state legislatures. We need to keep up the pressure on them and let them know we'll support them against any threats they get if they want it.
https://infogalactic.com/info/GamerGate
I doubt you'll get an accurate account of what happened on Wikipedia.
This type of "thinking" is one of the reasons professional requirements documents are moving their language to MUST instead of SHALL for requirement descriptions.
All because people can't understand how language was used when it was originally written. I don't think "shall" is ambiguous at all in a requirement, but I'm not a Supreme Court Justice.
Maybe this is a backdoor way to weaken the 2nd Amendment even more, "shall not be infringed" doesn't mean we can't infringe, it just means we're not supposed to, but we'll do it anyways.
But this isn't them being allowed to keep stuff on their platform posted by other people. This is them inserting their own editorial on something someone posted on their site. It's clearly outside the realm of what 230 covers.
We don't need "high skilled workers" from other countries. We have enough engineering and science grads. Visas are a way for companies to under pay for labor by dangling a green card.
We're not getting only the top talent like it's pitched.
India has to abide by the absolute limit right now. Lee's bill would've allowed even more Indian green cards.
The fact that he proposed it at all is bad enough.
I resent your implication that I didn't read the text. I know what it said, and I know what it means. You read it for 15 minutes and think you understand it. You clearly don't. Maybe your wages haven't been suppressed by green card holders so I'll give you a pass.
Perhaps you could do a little research into Lee's relationship with India and tech companies as well. Then maybe you'll get more context.