We’ve been tossed a bone. Still waiting on the Trump decision.
I do feel like we’ve been seeing a lot of headlines that follow a pattern of MAJOR NEWS SCOTUS SIDES WITH BIDEN on something super obvious and inconsequential.
Normally, that would be a given and non-story. These days (gestures vaguely), normal is newsworthy.
There’s 6 Republicans on SCOTUS. 2 of them are hard-line “originalists” that usually rule as far right as possible against human rights. 1 is the fucking Boofer who hasn’t been as awful as expected (he’s young so saving up his shittery I guess?). And one is so fucking incompetent she bragged she took no notes during her questioning.
I’m surprised every decision isn’t a 6-3 vote against humanity.
“Boofer”
My god I haven’t hear that term in DECADES!
Let’s not even entertain the concept of “originalists.” Anyone who calls conservatives “originalists” should be laughed at to their faces.
Otherwise, I agree with you entirely.
Piece of shit perjured himself rather than admit he and his buddies like to squirt beer up each others’ asses. And he’s a Supreme Court Justice.
They’re keeping their powder dry when they all swing hard right for the most consequential ruling. So everyone can say but look we were reasonable on all these other things that wouldn’t have ever really impacted you.
Exactly. I don’t know how anyone can actually think these people have a conscience.
It gets released tomorrow so it will grab headlines over the debate
Cynical me thinks they did this exactly because there’s a pretty good chance Trump will be re-elected in the near future, and they’re a-ok with Trump squeezing social media companies. Don’t want to prematurely take away King Trump’s power!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security.
The justices threw out lower-court rulings that favored Louisiana, Missouri and other parties in their claims that officials in the Democratic administration leaned on the social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view.
In February, the court heard arguments over Republican-passed laws in Florida and Texas that prohibit large social media companies from taking down posts because of the views they express.
The states had argued that White House communications staffers, the surgeon general, the FBI and the U.S. cybersecurity agency are among those who applied “unrelenting pressure” to coerce changes in online content on social media platforms.
But the justices appeared broadly skeptical of those claims during arguments in March and several worried that common interactions between government officials and the platforms could be affected by a ruling for the states.
The Biden administration underscored those concerns when it noted that the government would lose its ability to communicate with the social media companies about antisemitic and anti-Muslim posts, as well as on issues of national security, public health and election integrity.
The original article contains 439 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 51%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
(on standing)
