As we have long said, “If your business depends on a platform, you don’t have a business.” That principle implies “If your exercise of free speech depends on a platform, you don’t have free speech.” And now we are seeing that Biden Administration efforts to pressure social media companies to clamp down on “misinformation” even when later proven to be true, such as the bona fides of Hunter Biden’s laptop, are in the free and clear.
In a Kafkaesque ruling, the Supreme Court decided by 6 to 3 that the plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri, who’d largely prevailed in lower court decisions, did not have standing to bring the case. We have embedded the ruling at the end of this post, and the document includes Samuel Alito’s dissent.
Oddly, there’s comparatively little reaction in the Twitterverse to this loss to users and the public at large. I hope Glenn Greenwald weight in. There are only a few pointed takes like these:
It’s a sad day for America, as the Supreme Court has just ruled that the government can collude with Big Tech companies to censor free speech.
The First Amendment is now dead in the United States. pic.twitter.com/bvLWjfGwcw
— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) June 27, 2024
BREAKING: Jonathan Turley condemns Supreme Court ruling allowing the Biden White House to limit free speech, says, "The Government is engaging in censorship by surrogate," and adding, "They have made a mockery of the limits of the 1st Amendment." WATCH pic.twitter.com/BCBRHeaJ0j
— Simon Ateba (@simonateba) June 26, 2024
Now admittedly, the case has simply been remanded. The plaintiffs have the opportunity to amend their filings so as to attempt to cure the standing problem, or make new filings with different plaintiffs. However, the logic of the ruling poses a high bar.
To put this in simple terms, the Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that they had been harmed with sufficient particularity, as both shown that they had been damaged and produced a smoking gun as to whodunnit. The latter point of view flies in the face of many past rulings that found that government throat-clearing could have a chilling effect and that alone was sufficient to support a First Amendment challenge. Here, instead, the plaintiffs were to demonstrate that they faced the prospect of not just past but probable future censorship. For anti-vaxxers, that seems intuitively plausible, but how does one demonstrate that?
This is the gist of the decision on standing. For ease of digestion, from the Syllabus:
Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Ar- ticle III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. Pp. 8– 29.
(a) Article III’s “case or controversy” requirement is “fundamental” to the “proper role” of the Judiciary. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811, 818. A proper case or controversy exists only when at least one plain- tiff “establish[es] that [she] ha[s] standing to sue,” ibid.—i.e., that she has suffered, or will suffer, an injury that is “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling,” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 409. Here, the plaintiffs’ theories of standing depend on the platforms’ actions—yet the plaintiffs do not seek to enjoin the plat- forms from restricting any posts or accounts. Instead, they seek to enjoin the Government agencies and officials from pressuring or en- couraging the platforms to suppress protected speech in the future.
The one-step-removed, anticipatory nature of the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries presents two particular challenges. First, it is a bedrock prin- ciple that a federal court cannot redress “injury that results from the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 41–42. Sec- ond, because the plaintiffs request forward-looking relief, they must face “a real and immediate threat of repeated injury.” O’Shea v. Lit- tleton, 414 U. S. 488, 496. Putting these requirements together, the plaintiffs must show a substantial risk that, in the near future, at least one platform will restrict the speech of at least one plaintiff in response to the actions of at least one Government defendant. Here, at the pre- liminary injunction stage, they must show that they are likely to suc- ceed in carrying that burden. On the record in this case, that is a tall order. Pp. 8–10.
This is the nut of the issue from the ruling itself:
Here, the plaintiffs’ theories of standing depend on the platforms’ actions—yet the plaintiffs do not seek to enjoin the platforms from restricting any posts or accounts.
I hate to say it, because writers like me are very much harmed by this ruling, but it does sound like a case with compelling evidence (the Twitter Files) was not properly conceptualized and argued.
The nature of the abuse of rights is analogous to shareholder suits. Experts are welcome to correct me, but my impression is that First Amendment suits are normally filed by publishers against the government, or alternatively, by voters where their right to speak in the so-called town square (in public spaces, in public meeting) is denied or unduly restricted. Here, the argument effectively that the government muscled the platforms to restrict the speech of various users.
So in my amateur lawyer opinion, the suit would have to be approached like a derivative shareholder suit, where shareholders step in to assert the rights of the corporation that it ought to be asserting but isn’t due to hopeless conflicts or laziness. There are certain standards the plaintiff have to meet, called “demand futility.” In layperson terms, the plaintiffs must establish that their demands have failed (posts were not restored, de-amplification was not reversed) or that the demand is futile (the platforms are not going to stand up to the Feds out of fear of various forms of retaliation. Recall that the Twitter Files did contain not-very-thinly-veiled threats).
Again I am not expert in this area. But the Section 230 waiver of liability for Facebook, Twitter et al rests on the law treating the platforms as passive conduits for user-submitted material, and therefore exempts from liability for content, on the fiction that they are not publishers making editorial decisions. A reconceptualized filing might try to pin the platforms on the horns of a dilemma: how can they be mere message board equivalents if they are moderating at scale and acceding to government arm-twisting? Does their conduct go beyond the legislative intent behind the liability protection? There seems to be no evidence that their legal departments even went as far as sending missives to the Feds questioning the First Amendment grounds of the institutionalize meddling.
Having said that, as Matt Taibbi stresses in his write-up, the Supreme Court went way beyond where it had to go to dismiss the case on Article III standing. It validated the Administration claims that stories about the Hunter Biden laptop as a Russian scheme and meaningful levels of vaccine injuries were disinformation.
And the Alito opposition is very persuasive. Alito argues that if you look merely at the case of one plaintiff, Jill Hines, the co-director of Health Freedom Louisiana, that contrary to the majority opinion, she more than met the Article III threshold for showing she had been harmed by the censorship campaign, that she was highly likely to have her posts censored and de-amplified, and that the (in this case Facebook) action was traceable to Biden Administration action (Alito includes many quotes from Biden officials and servile Facebook responses). So his dissent could be a roadmap for refiling the case. However, Alito’s big point is that First Amendment rights need to reflect the current state of technology (which is a basis for looking more critically at how to apply the Article III tests). This court is clearly loath to do so.
What was unusual about this case was that the Twitter Files had provided so much factual grist, the sort of thing damaged parties usually cannot access to establish that their suspicions are valid. Yet waging a proxy war via social media apparently succeeded in making everyone responsible, giving the Supreme Court as easy dodge by pointing out the plaintiffs had not targeted the immediate perps, the social media platforms.
As Taibbi concluded:
Murthy v. Missouri may not have been a perfect challenge to digital censorship, but I’m struck by the difference in the way the appellate judges in the Fifth Circuit responded to the evidence, as opposed to the Supreme Court. The appellate judges reacted like people. They read profanity-laden tirades directed at the platforms from the White House, and blithe recommendations regarding exactly how much this or that media figure should be deamplified and expressed instinctive revulsion and outrage, before collecting themselves and delivering a careful and limited ruling. The Supremes clearly did not find this conduct surprising or upsetting in the slightest, which is the problem.
The Supreme Court, irrespective of its partisan construction, has been shrugging at outrages to the Bill of Rights since 9/11. The national security establishment increasingly becoming a black box during that time has made these challenges harder. But kudos to the plaintiffs and their lawyers for attacking anyway, because terms like “traceability” and “nonjusticiable” and “special factors” are all the spy state has in its defense.
There are some possibilities for reversing or reducing this loss. One as mentioned above, is repleading the case. Another is for similarly-situated plaintiffs. RFK, Jr. had won a preliminary injunction for censorship of his anti-Covid-vax speech, but that was stayed pending the ruling on this case. It’s hard to think that RFK, Jr. can’t meet the standard of showing past and imminent prospective harm, given the impact of smothering mis social media voice on both his anti-vax foundation and his Presidential campaign. I have not had a chance to read his filings to see if he targeted the platforms and had a clearer history of wrestling with them over down-ranking and content-removal than the Murthy plaintiffs.
Another angle would for states opposed to the Supreme Court ruling to band together, draft model legislation, and pass free speech laws. Intuitively, there should be no bar to creating protections that now exceed those of the First Amendment. Perhaps they can remedy the refusal of the Supreme Court to clarify the position of social media platforms when they act as arms of official censors.
Finally, it would be amusing, if Trump wins, to see his Administration closely replicate the practices of the Biden Administration in stomping on speech it dislikes. Will the platforms suddenly discover the First Amendment if they face pressure from officials with opposed ideological view? This ruling has the potential to become a nest of hornets down the road.
00 Scotus on free speech June 26
56 comments
Comments are closed.
That conclusion by Taibbi is disheartening. Optically, Scotus hasn’t much legitimacy left. Here I would yell “ours is not a serious country.”, but are we a nation or just an oversized shopping mall?
If “Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country” (McCain), then America has become a shopping mall masquerading as a democracy, where billionaires buy votes and laws and the masses buy crap.
It’s not what they say to each other about Russia. Here is Margaret Thatcher talking about Russia like General Laura Richardson talks about South America-
https://www.bitchute.com/video/xUbZjk6nXWaM/ (46 secs)
“are we a nation or just an oversized shopping mall?”
Private equity company has been my option for a description.
a looted and abandoned shopping mall
Interesting timing coming on the heels of Assange being released. I look forward to reading justice Alito dissenting opinion.
It is part of the document embedded at the end of the post. Scroll to p. 35.
SCOTUS fails to see how the plaintiffs, and society, stands to suffer consequences of reining US government fascism.
Risk is consequence that is harmful and likely (as we see in safety, and insurance).
Turley this morning
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/06/27/want-to-defeat-joe-biden-look-to-the-1800-election-and-make-free-speech-the-key-issue-in-2024/
I think he’s right that the public at large cares very much about being able to freely speak but I also think for that very reason the threat to their speech may be exaggerated. The real threat is the rot in our major institutions including broadcast media–very much a partner of the government that owns the airwaves and regulates the cables and pipelines–and the fast attenuating national newspapers that still hold so much sway among their colleagues. As Chomsky said self censorship is how our elites “manufacture consent” as they did during Vietnam, the World Wars and attempted to do with Adams from the very beginning. It’s the MSM that allowed and supported someone like Biden becoming president whereas the public views him with contempt to a significant degree. They believe their lying eyes (and their pocket books) rather than Pravda on the Potomac.
At any rate kudos to this site which has always allowed open disagreement and debate and came along when sites like Daily Kos were already devoted to groupthink. Wanting to know the truth is why we are here.
Is my right to “free speech” harmed if nobody can hear me? I say “Aye!”.
Free speech was always a joke. Americans love to hand-wring over their “rights” supposedly promised to them by their beloved Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Surprise surprise, all of this unalienable rights stuff is all contingent. Americans have made a bed of tyranny, now it’s time to sleep in it.
Free speech was never meant for the slaves. The guy in the mansion knows best what words should be freely spoken.
P.S. Do illegal aliens have unalienable rights?
P.S.2. Does a bed made of tyranny have a monster under it?
Does a bed made of tyranny have a monster under it? Maybe. It definitely has polyester sheets.
“Americans” is doing some work there. Not that I disagree with the premise. “Money” might be more accurate.
Bang on. American freedom is in reality oppressive.
This probably needs some unpacking. But for brief explanation, see this string further below.
Yup! Free speech is only for people with plenty of money, because money is speech after all!
Well, thank you for sending over your best and brightest to get the party started, eh?
To i just dont like the gravy,
I completely agree. I’ve never met a people so neurotic about their individual freedom that as a result they have so little.
Few points:
(1) Except in Alito’s dissent, this decision did not touch on the merits of the case, it only addressed the preliminary injunction. Having denied the injunction, the underlying case can still proceed in the lower courts. However, other than injunctive relief, I am not sure what the plaintiffs are seeking: damages? And with no Article III standing for injunctive relief, I am not sure how badly that hurts their ability to get a ruling that the government suppressed free speech. An order barring coercive communications by government officials with Facebook seems like the only remedy here, should these plaintiffs somehow prevail.
(2) Because the decision did not address the merits, it sets no precedent and is not controlling for any other suits. So RFK Jr’s suit (which I expect is well pled) can proceed. Let’s hope he pushes it forward. His twitter comments indicate that he will.
(3) Coney’s reasoning is bizarre. She is essentially saying that the government can coerce a private company to change their policies to suppress free speech, and as long as they desist in such efforts for a time, the private company can keep their “tainted” policies (using her own words) in place as long as the coercion stops, and the victim has no standing for injunctive relief. (Pg. 4, “substantial risk of future injury” test.) Essentially the government only has to stop its campaign once its’ effective.
Obviously, the government stopped their strong-arming tactics because: (a) they were being sued and there was a brief period when the lower court injunction was in effect; and (b) the policies had already been changed and gone into effect. There was no need to keep up the campaign.
This seems like yet another instance of the Court torturing the law to reach a goal-seeked outcome. By making the test for Article III standing more onerous, Barrett-Coney did a dance around the actual First Amendment meat of the case. It seems that she invented a new, more burdensome test for the plaintiffs in order to get out of having to make a tough call.
And you make a good point about a hypothetical Trump or other far-right administration using this cowardly decision to suppress free speech about topics that the three alleged “liberals” on the Court may not be so delighted with. I am sure they were thrilled to see Facebook and Twitter suppress the free speech of people like RFK Jr. and Hines, but they may not like it so much when the shoe is on their foot.
Too bad we lack a true liberal on the court to defend the Bill of Rights in the tradition of Thorogood Marshall or Justice Stevens. Another Obama failing?
No Making Shit Up.
Losing on standing means the case is dead. It CANNOT proceed. There was no reason to consider the merits because it failed on the threshold issue of standing.
It might be revived if considerably reconceptualized and re-argued.
See a few of many examples:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-side-with-biden-over-governments-influence-on-social-media-content-moderation/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/murthy-v-missouri-supreme-court-censorship-social-media-facebook-covid-samuel-alito-amy-coney-barrett-1ea4feda?page=1
I may have misunderstood the procedural stuff but I don’t think I “made shit up.” The lack of standing for an injunction is what I understood the ruling to mean, but what if the plaintiffs are also seeking damages? Preliminary injunctions have a higher bar to clear but there have been cases where the plaintiffs did not succeed in winning a P.I. but still eventually won the case on the merits.
If the entire case is indeed a dead letter, and all the lower court can do is dismiss it, then you’re right. Then the Kennedy case is the only live one.
The Article III standing issues are the same for the underlying case.
Moreover, separate from the standing issue, denial of an injunction is a sign the court has deemed the plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail on the underlying action. Here the reason is lack of standing. They have no business being in court with no standing.
After some more reading it looks like the plaintiffs were not seeking damages. So, you’re right, it’s dead Jim.
Also, there is more than one other live case alleging a similar 1st amendment violation by the Biden admin. Alex Berenson thinks he has a better shot, as the post by Societal Illusions below points out.
I do think I am owed an acknowledgement for being falsely accused of making stuff up. Being wrong about something does not equate to intent to deceive, which is how I interpret your accusation. You could have just said “you’re wrong, dummy.”
I have made a lot of effort to read the case and don’t feel like it is fair to throw me in that category.
Let a lawyer try to explain.
As a preliminary matter, federal courts must determine if the plaintiff has Article III standing to bring the action. If the court finds the plaintiff has standing, only then will it look at the merits of the action. In this case, the federal district court and the Circuit court both previously found the plaintiffs had standing.
However, the Supreme Court held plaintiffs lacked standing. The merits or lack thereof of the injunction are now irrelevant. The case will be dismissed due to the lack of standing.
Perhaps plaintiffs will seek leave to amend their complaint to allege standing in a manner that complies with the Supreme Court’s ruling. However it is doubtful that they will be able to climb that hurdle.
notice how this CNN article totally ignores other cases (Berenson and RFK Jr.) on hold for this one, which will now move forward and HAVE clear standing… and this is the platform hosting a presidential debate ignoring a third candidate?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/26/politics/social-media-disinformation-supreme-court-ruling/index.html
The issue of standing is the key to the whole thing. A good writeup on the case can be found on the Volokh blog:
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/06/26/the-supreme-courts-dangerous-standing-ruling-in-murthy-v-missouri/
Unlike Hines and the other plaintiffs in this case, RFK Jr. will have a much better shot at establishing standing even under the new “Barrett test.” He is running for President so censoring his posts will clearly be seen as harm to him in the future, vs. past harm. Still, Barrett did a lot of damage and she should be ashamed of herself.
ACB is perhaps qualified to be a crossing guard in South Bend.
Those of us that have a few neural networks in our brain that still function need to understand that ALL our major institutions are either profoundly corrupt in the old-fashioned sense or systemically corrupt. To be clear, we are moving either into a totalitarian system or a feudal-style system with elements of both. What I am certain of is the democracy does die in darkness and the darkness is upon us now and, as I see it, there is only one possibility to find a new path–i.e., the citizenry needs to wake up and not be fooled every two to four years in voting for the Uniparty–the party with two right wings (Gore Vidal’s prescient and wise term for our system). We improve matters by getting off of social media and beginning to connect with and support our friends, families, local communities even if it is only a smile for the cashier at the supermarket. Things like encouraging people rather than put them down which comes after we realize we are all connected, i.e., to find our authentic self which is full of love and joy. We won’t find it in entertainment or politics as currently situated. We still have free-speech, talk to people, share your feelings without making their feeling wrong. There is no other path. The System will not and cannot reform itself just as Washington cannot stop killing or controlling people because that’s its source of power.
Very good, thank you Chris. It’s difficult since the “blob” now has more intellectual control of media and is quickly gaining control of the ground via police, drones etc. So now we have to fight the media by getting off of it, finding and supporting non MSM, and somehow fight the blob on the ground. Difficult times and a difficult “decision” to reverse. Not real articulate this afternoon, but again, good comment.
The Powell Memorandum-inspired system of Inverted Totalitarianism was formalized during Slick-Willie and Newt’s dismantling of the New Deal and metastasized during Shrub’s GWOT. Powell was eventually on the Supreme Court. That institution is not going to save us.
In practice, Inverted Totalitarianism has many of the hallmarks of feudalism. Feudal fiefdoms are sovereign-granted monopolies — like the platforms which dominate the Internet appear to be. The Intersewer was in effect created by the government through DARPA, CERN, and the NSF/NCSA. There is no good reason that this government-funded resource should have been privatized and commercialized other than corruption and greed. It has simply become a tool for bullying and resource-hoarding.
Truer words have never been written: If your business depends on a platform, you don’t have a business.
Hard not to see the Dem congressmen and women hectoring and haranguing and threatening the SC justices as a form of “working the refs.” I wonder how much that affected their judgements.
AOC is one of the point persons on the attacks.
AOC – Adjust One’s Credo
I’d pay to see a debate between AOC and John Rocker.
heh heh, thinking of all the money sloshing around up there. Pretty sure this is a “bipartisan effort”, and “a win for democracy! Look! They are reaching across the aisle!”. Good times if you enjoy black humor and a future that resembles a ten second buzz.
Very true. / ;)
adding from Taibbi’s quote:
“The Supreme Court, irrespective of its partisan construction, has been shrugging at outrages to the Bill of Rights since 9/11. The national security establishment increasingly becoming a black box during that time has made these challenges harder. ”
Not forgeting that less than one year prior to 9/11/2001, the USSC issued the very controversial decision in Bush v Gore. The primary holding of the court, per Justia:
“Primary Holding
Despite violating the Fourteenth Amendment by using disparate vote-counting procedures in different counties, Florida did not need to complete a recount in the 2000 presidential election because it could not be accomplished in a constitutionally valid way within the time limit set by federal law for resolving these controversies.
”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/#materialsf
Justice Brennan offered a blistering dissent to the decision.
Then in 2010 came the Citizens United decision which overturned settled law about campaign finance rules wrt corporate spending.
Is the suggestion here that they are too loud?
Alex Berenson offers this could help his case as he has direct evidence of specific harm, so will avoid this issue, plus has new evidence to add which provides an even stronger position.
https://open.substack.com/pub/alexberenson/p/the-supreme-court-has-ruled-for-the
So between his and RFK’s case, perhaps this rotten and clearly illegal and unconstitutional behavior will finally stop.
He needs also to sue the right people. The logic of the ruling is he has to sue the platforms. The platforms will claim he violated their Terms of Service, and that determination had nothing to do with government interference. That is the hill he would have to climb.
Oh my, that’s hard to swallow. As Jimi Hendrix said “dang, what a hang”.
The guardians of free speech are not officials appointed and paid by the government.
This article goes nicely with the article in links:
“Elite misinformation is an underrated problem’ Matthew Yglesias
Important institutions are too eager to mislead people.
Mail it to the Supreme Corp.
And Matty is the very last person I would have expected to take such a view, so maybe there’s some hope reducing over-reach.
Dude seems to change his mind a lot, but yeah I am a bit surprised as well. Usually I would put him in the “sycophant-stenographer” category. But one needs to maintain a shred of credibility once in a while
“But one needs to maintain a shred of credibility once in a while.”
Just like the court.
Maybe we are heading for a techno-totalitarian-feudal $ystem or billionaires delight. Before the Civil War it was the Slave Power that was the bete noire and it took 750,000 dead to more or less banish that. What will it take this time?
Thirteen years ago, NC published Andrew Dittmer’s series Journey Into a Libertarian Future. It sounded too fantastic to believe then. Now?
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/11/journey-into-a-libertarian-future-part-i-%E2%80%93the-vision.html
“Remanded for further proceedings” means plaintiffs have another opportunity to amend their complaint and present their arguments, if they wish. SCOTUS insists on waiting for an actual trial to happen.
The majority opinion states there is insufficient evidence that the plaintiffs suffered injury, let alone, injured by government coercion of a third party’s speech. One, social media was moderating the plaintiffs’ tsedoodelt posts way before the government had anything to do with it. And two, the factual findings by the Fifth Circuit concerning the Biden Admin’s actions were “clearly erroneous”. Not only was there no evidence to suggest gov’t coercion, the plaintiffs didn’t really bring evidence, only attribution bias. So the Court said it don’t do “general legal oversight”. The public sector and the private sector can talk to each other without the automatic assumption of skulduggery.
I did say that they can replead the case. But the standing issues are a killer unless the case is reworked from top to bottom.
In an Article III standing loss with a Kentucky Retirement Systems case, the efforts to replead the case along original lines were rejected. They had to find new plaintiffs and a new basis for damages to refile. It was an entirely new case and the court had to agree that it did not overlap with other actions to allow it to proceed.
Both so-called conservative and so-called liberal members of the elite-supremacist court effectively piss on the constitution. These people are not “conservative” they are rank hypocrites, and radical authoritarians. The “law” is basically just fancy, jargon-filled, convoluted PR to “legitimize” unjust activity.
We have this decision further curtailing what is left of so-called free speech. After all the supremes already deemed money equivalent to political speech – unlimited political bribery is legal and formalized. To put the icing on the cake we have this.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/27/supreme-court-bribes-gratuities-snyder-kavanaugh
This is just another brick in the wall: so-called free speech, and most public discourse is already largely privatized: controlled by the oligarchy-owned MassMediaCartel (MiniTrue) – including internet-based monopolies. We have the CIA involved in Mockingbird style misinformation that is hiding in plain sight. As we know, we have Amazon, the Washington Post and others working with the CIA. The merger of state and corporate power is resulting in the slowly-but-steadily developing tyranny and dystopia.
Although Assange is free, the chilling effect on free speech and free press is well-noted. Report something embarrassing to the empire, and you will be persecuted or worse. (see Dark Alliance, Gary Webb, and Shireen Abu Akleh for another example)
We could go on and on, but when is public trust and confidence in our flagrantly corrupt institutions going to erode to the point of farce? Or are we already there, and this is just Kabuki theater?
To your point, lost among all the legal mumbo-jumbo are the obvious facts:
1. These plaintiffs were Americans. They’re protected by the Bill of Rights, at least in theory.
2. They were harmed by the government conduct either directly or in some sort of ambiguous fashion (was it Facebook or the Govt. who did the harm?) – this was conceded even by Barrett.
3. The First Amendment is literally the premier part of the Bill of Rights, and it’s fundamental to what makes America different than, say, the UK. To dance around it on a technicality like standing is pure legal cowardice.
4. Courts are part of the system of checks and balances. They don’t need to wade into every controversy, but an important case like this one, where the executive branch shows no signs of remedying its’ own malfeasance, was custom-made for some judicial activism to check abuse by the executive.
5. Leaving the real issue unresolved – the merger of state and corporate power, and the blurring of the lines therein, serves nobody but the status quo. It appears that this corrupt status quo is what Barrett and the other five justices were trying to protect.
I agree that this is a farce and none of us should have any confidence that all the things taught to us in school that made our system of government better than the British or heck the Pinochet regime still exist in any meaningful form. Institutional rot has taken hold.
Nicely summarized, thanks.
One thing is different in the US than other authoritarian oligarchies or autocracies: we have much more expensive and sophisticated methods of discourse management and misinformation.
The only people who have standing anymore are hand picked and vetted by the lawyers guild to make law via the courts. That’s it. If you continue to misinform….