Following Mark Zuckerberg’s putative mea culpa for having made Meta complicit in the largest censorship regime in American history, and his vow to restore free expression on his platforms, the CEO made perhaps his most consequential statement of all in an interview with Joe Rogan.

There, after describing the pressure campaign the Biden administration waged against his company to suppress disfavored speech, primarily regarding Covid-19, Zuckerberg told Rogan: “I don’t think that the pushing for social media companies to censor stuff was legal.”

The Meta CEO’s silence as this very issue was being litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court was as deafening then as it is maddening now. But in making this assertion, he has inadvertently highlighted one of the Roberts Court’s gravest derelictions of duty — one that emphasizes the necessity of vigorous executive and legislative actions in defense of our rights, actions like those promised by the Trump administration and some in Congress.

The dereliction of duty came in the Supreme Court’s punting of the case of Murthy v. Missouri, previously known as Missouri v. Biden.

Plaintiffs in the case obtained and marshaled voluminous evidence demonstrating that senior Biden White House officials and federal agencies coerced, cajoled, and colluded directly and indirectly with social media companies to purge disfavored news and views en masse on matters ranging from the Hunter Biden laptop story to election integrity and Covid-19. The defendants did so on ostensible grounds of combatting dangerous “mis-, dis-, and mal-information.” In deputizing non-governmental actors as its speech police, the plaintiffs argued, the feds engaged in a conspiracy to violate the First Amendment by proxy.

The case, alongside congressional investigations and reportage including the “Twitter Files,” helped expose the size, scope, and nature of the censorship-industrial complex. //

The defendants appealed. But Judge Doughty’s counterparts on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld his ruling.

So the feds took their argument to the Supreme Court. There, shockingly, as I observed while attending oral arguments, far too many of the justices showed they held a perversely narrow view of the First Amendment, and they gave substantial deference to the feds that had so imperiled it. Some also seemed remarkably ignorant of the expansive factual record supporting the plaintiffs’ claims.

Last summer, the high court dismissed the plaintiffs’ concerns and Americans’ free speech rights on a technicality. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supremes held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief, refusing to rule on the merits of the case.

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, rebuked the court for straining to create “new” and “heightened” standards to find that the plaintiffs lacked standing and warned that the court’s refusal to rule on the merits of the case could result in dire consequences.

“[W]e are obligated to tackle the free speech issue that the case presents,” Alito asserted. “The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think.”

The dissent concluded that what transpired in Murthy “was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so.”

By not ruling that the censorship-industrial complex’s acts were unconstitutional — by avoiding the question entirely — the Supremes signaled that it was open season on free speech in America. //

The courts simply cannot be seen as a reliable backstop for protecting our First Amendment rights against the censorship-industrial complex.

What’s more, if Republicans allow the fed-led censorship regime to persist, there will be no deterrent to Democrat efforts to create analogous regimes going forward, targeting rights beyond those enshrined in the First Amendment.

Zuckerberg’s admission of a pressure campaign lays bare the truth: the government colluded with Big Tech to violate Americans’ First Amendment right and the Supreme Court squandered an opportunity to right a wrong.

At the end of each year—only hours before a new year begins—Roberts releases his “Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary.” Think of it as a written “State of the Judiciary” address. In this latest report, he focused on “four areas of illegitimate activity that … threaten the independence of judges on which the rule of law depends.”

What are those threats? According to Roberts, they’re “(1) violence, (2) intimidation, (3) disinformation, and (4) threats to defy lawfully entered judgments.”

The Democrats’ entire assault on the court, and especially on Justices Thomas and Alito, has ended in utter defeat. //

The Democrats falsely accused Justices Thomas and Alito of violating ethics laws by not disclosing vacations with friends and not recusing from cases because of their spouses’ activities. They are wrong on both counts.

Justices Thomas and Alito complied with the laws, regulations, advice, and Judicial Conference rulings regarding reporting trips with friends. They were not required to report these trips under the personal hospitality exemption outlined in the law, no matter what the leaders of this witch hunt, Democrat Sens. Dick Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse, claim or wish.

When the Judicial Conference, which was established by law to administer the ethics laws for the federal judiciary, changed its rules in March 2023 and excluded from the personal hospitality exemption trips on private planes and boats, Justice Thomas promptly reported such trips.

The Supreme Court, which dealt a major blow to the power of federal agencies in June, agreed on Friday to consider another: whether Congress violates the Constitution by delegating broad discretion to them.

The so-called nondelegation doctrine has been largely dormant since 1935, when the Supreme Court struck down New Deal laws for granting too much leeway to agencies with insufficient guidance. //

Judge Andrew S. Oldham of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit wrote in the majority ruling that deemed the program unconstitutional:

“The universal service contribution mechanism’s double-layered delegation is incompatible with our constitutional structure.”

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - When Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas broke his nearly seven-year silence during oral arguments last week, there was much speculation about what exactly he said. Just four cryptic words appeared in the court's unofficial transcript.
Now it can be told: It was nine words and apparently a joke.

The left’s latest attack stems from Gorsuch’s new book on the government going after regular Americans. //

Three years before he threatened him while standing on the steps of the Supreme Court, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the problem with Neil Gorsuch was that his decisions as a federal judge were awful for the average working American.

“When the chips are down, far too often he sides with the powerful few over everyday Americans just trying to get a fair shake,” the powerful Schumer said against Gorsuch’s nomination.

On the first day of those confirmation hearings, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said, “In case after case, you have dismissed or rejected efforts by workers and families to recognize their rights or defend their freedoms.”

Now, Gorsuch’s left-wing critics say his problem is actually the complete opposite. They say he cares too much about the little guy and not enough about the bureaucracy that goes after the little guy.

Yes, really.

The criticism stems from a book Gorsuch recently co-authored with Janie Nitze titled Over Ruled: The Human Toll Of Too Much Law. //

The campaign against Supreme Court justices who fail to bend to the will of the left will undoubtedly continue. This particular attack is about as substantive as the previous ones, which is to say not very.

The Supreme Court will not halt Special Counsel Jack Smith’s review of private messages between former President Donald Trump and Twitter, now known as X.

On Monday, the nine-justice panel issued handed down their decision without explanation, declining to consider Trump’s challenge against Smith’s secret warrant.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) first sought the records in January last year, demanding a complete trove of private information including Trump’s search history, direct messages, account settings, and activity under the “@realDonaldTrump” username. According to The Hill, the government obtained a nondisclosure order to bar X from revealing the existence of the warrant, even to the former president.

“The company challenged the order, arguing the records were potentially covered by executive privilege and not being able to tell Trump violated the First Amendment,” The Hill reported. “Court filings show X at one point was fined $350,000 for not timely turning over Trump’s data.”

Attempts to block Smith’s surveillance in the lower courts, however, failed. The Supreme Court ultimately refused to hear another challenge to the warrant in Smith’s criminal case, which is related to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether the court should even be involved in addressing the policy in the first place, saying she was concerned about the court “taking over what Congress may have intended for the agency to do in this situation.”

"I think it can't be assumed that the agency exceeds its authority whenever it interprets a statutory term differently than we would such that all we have to do as a part of this claim here today is just decide what we think a firearm is." //

Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed concerns that the regulation would criminalize ghost gun sellers who might not be aware that they are violating a law, CNN reported.

“This is an agency regulation that broadens a criminal statute beyond what it had been before,” Kavanaugh asked. “What about the seller, for example, who is truly not aware — truly not aware — that they are violating the law and gets criminally charged?”

Prelogar said prosecutors would have to prove that the seller was willfully violating the law. Kavanaugh described Prelogar’s answer as “helpful.” //

Twist Gamma
12 minutes ago
Kavanaugh nailed it at the end.

I was on board with the government's argument up until Kavanaugh made it clear that this was not a law but an interpretation of a law. Interpretations on something like this should absolutely go in the favor of the citizen, so that citizens do not become criminals without realizing it.

If guns are regulated, there is no problem with regulating, in the same way, a kit that has all of the ingredients + instructions to build a gun. It's the same thing, assuming the kit is complete. Any restriction on guns that passes Constitutional muster could equally be applied to a complete gun kit.

However, deciding that they are equivalent is the job of Congress, not the courts. And ESPECIALLY not the job of the bureaucracy.

Whether the restrictions themselves are Constitutional is a separate question, of course.

the Texas case will now return to the District Court for further proceedings, but for now, the Texas Human Life Protection Act remains in effect. //

Keith
2 hours ago
This frivolous appeal by Biden's admin is indicative of their contempt for legal rulings they don't like and the courts that issue them. They are tyrants just looking for the opportunity to rule us all.

SCOTUS was clear on making abortion a state, not federal issue. //

Largo Patriot
3 hours ago edited
States rights exist for a reason and do not prevail only when the federal government allows them to. That's the whole point of states rights. People in red states shouldn't have to live like the people in blue states and vice versa. Abortion advocates are hyperventilating that the federal government, at Trump's direction, will ban all abortions, but have no problem if the federal government, at a Democrat's direction, bans all restrictions on abortion, including restrictions that prevent born alive babies from being left to die. The best way to resolve this conflict is to allow state voters, not federal voters, to decide the regulation issue. We've been arguing about abortion for more than 50 years despite the fact it's been legal that entire time, but legal is never enough, safe and rare is a joke and "celebrate abortion" is the battle cry of pro-abortion advocates. Why don't they put as much time and effort into preventing unwanted pregnancies as they put into killing unwanted babies? It's cheaper, safer and no human life is lost.

In April 1991, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave the Alexander Meiklejohn Lecture at Brown University, in which he explored the idea of the U.S. Constitution.

“Unlike any other nation in the world, we consider ourselves bound together, not by genealogy or residence but by belief in certain principles; and the most important of those principles are set forth in the Constitution of the United States,” Justice Scalia said.

Referring to the Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1787, Justice Scalia added,

When else has a government been established, not by conquerors dividing up the spoils, or even by political parties parceling out the power, but by a four-month seminar consisting of many of the most erudite and politically experienced individuals in the nation?

The justice went on to remind his listeners why it’s critical each generation of Americans learn, know and love our Constitution.

“[The U.S. Supreme Court] cannot save the society from itself – because in the last analysis the Court is no more than the society itself,” Justice Scalia said, adding,

The Constitution will endure, in other words, only to the extent that it endures in your understanding and affection.

There are a few unshakable rules in political discourse - only a few, but there are some that never seem to be broken. One of these rules is that it is always the left, never the right, that calls for trashing the Constitution when they don't get their way. This is a fundamental law of the universe, which shall henceforth be known as "Clark's Law of Leftists Destroying the Village to Save It." //

The latest example? As our sister site Twitchy informs us, leftist lunatic Fran Lebowitz, on Bill Maher's HBO show, "Real Time," has called for President Biden to - get this - dissolve the Supreme Court. //

Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 @BrentHBaker
·
Bill Maher guest Fran Lebowitz declares SCOTUS is “so disgraceful it shouldn’t even be allowed to be called the Supreme Court, it’s an insult to Motown...It’s Trump’s harem.” President “Biden should dissolve the Supreme Court.” #StartTheClock

10:46 PM · Sep 27, 2024 //

As for Lebowitz, I'll offer her this challenge, the same one I offer to whiners who complain about the Second Amendment:

Fran, go ahead and propose a constitutional amendment to remove the Supreme Court. Pitch it to whoever your Congressional representative is. See how far you get. Because that's what you'll have to do, and I would remind you that even if you get Congress to go along - doubtful - you will have to gain the ratification of 38 of the 50 states. //

Smiling Alley Cat
8 hours ago
As she bashed the court the audience cheered her. Let that sink in as we need to identify our enemies.

A76-year-old Alaskan man is in custody after he allegedly threatened to assault, kidnap, lynch, torture, murder, and assassinate six of the nine Supreme Court justices. The names of the justices targeted, however, were withheld by the Department of Justice — likely because they confirm Democrats’ incendiary rhetoric against the conservative members of the court is working.

The DOJ announced on Thursday that Panos Anastasiou faces nine counts of making threats against a federal judge and 13 counts of making threats in interstate commerce after he sent more than 465 messages pledging harm against justices via “a public website the court maintained.” //

The document accusing the Alaskan of several felonies, however, shows Anastasiou’s threats were well timed not only with a Democrat-manufactured ethics scandal, but also decisions secured specifically by the court’s conservative majority. //

For years, high-profile Democrats such as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have pledged that the conservative-controlled court would “pay the price” for ruling against their party’s partisan agenda.

If appealed, I think it is likely that the SCOTUS will deny certiorari. California and Hawaii will continue to restrict citizens from carrying in public and it seems likely that state legislatures, hostile to the 2nd Amendment will deem more areas “sensitive” making concealed carry permits almost useless in some states.

What has been constantly and conveniently ignored by state legislators and courts in California and Hawaii is that citizens who take the time and effort to get a concealed carry permit aren’t abusing it – or shooting people in public without good cause.

And criminals don’t apply for concealed carry permits because - they are criminals. //

Black Magic
an hour ago
Thank God I live in PA which has extremely good concealed carry regulations, though I still question why the other Constitutional Rights are not so encumbered, i.e., I don't think there should be such encumbrances on our Constitutional Rights.

Having said that, I am still anticipating when it is finally adjudicated and approved by the Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional to halt my concealed carry rights at the state line and I am still wondering why it is that, I believe it is the 14 Amendment (which ensures equal protection), insures interstate cooperation in licensing driving for instance, but stops my ability to defend myself when I leave my state.

Trump has previously said he felt this should be addressed and corrected and I look forward to that.

This using the United States Supreme Court to litigate elections should never have become a thing. We can blame former Vice President Al Gore for opening that door to that. Norah O'Donnell and the Brown Jackson are assuming the 2024 election will be contested and that SCOTUS will be the deciding factor. So rich. They are setting the narrative and the playing field.

when it comes to Roe v. Wade, for example, what did the court decide? Decided that we the people should answer that question, not nine people sitting in Washington, D.C. //

GARRETT: How about affirmative action?

GORSUCH: Much the same thing. What did we decide? We decided that all people are created equal, that it’s not acceptable in this country to discriminate on the basis of race. //

GARRETT: And, for those who would say but I feel something’s been ripped away from me, you would say?

GORSUCH: I would say that we’re taking it back to you. In a democracy, you’re in the driver’s seat. You’re the sovereign. Those famous three first words of the Constitution empower you. Do you really want me deciding everything for you?

GARRETT: And for a woman in a state where she no longer has the rights she once relied on, is that cold comfort?

GORSUCH: Major, all I can say is I don’t know better than you do on these questions. And that most major western democracies have decided these questions through the ballot box. //

part of me just wants to call Vladimir Duthiers an imbecile and leave it at that. His reasoning is so ridiculous as to be worthy of nothing but mockery. Would he say the same about the precedent that once allowed segregation of schools? What about the precedent that once restricted personhood for black Americans? The idea that a precedent is untouchable simply because it exists is moronic. What matters is proper legal interpretation of the law. Nothing more, nothing less.

In the end, what this Gorsuch interview shows is that Democrats have no actual argument. They are simply emoting at any given point, wrapping themselves in contradictions to garner the political outcome they want in the moment. The Supreme Court stands in the way of that, and that's why they are trying to destroy it.

. How does the court feel about potential changes — term limits, ethics codes that are enforced by someone in ways that it isn't now?

GORSUCH: Shannon, you're not going to be surprised that I'm not going to get into what is now a political issue during a presidential election year. I don't think that would be helpful.

I have one thought to add: It is that the independent judiciary means — what does it mean to you as an American? It means that when you're unpopular, you can get a fair hearing under the law and under the Constitution. If you're in the majority, you don't need judges and juries to hear you and protect your rights — you're popular.

It's there for the moments when the spotlight's on you, when the government's coming after you. And don't you want a ferociously independent judge and a jury of your peers to make those decisions? Isn't that your right as an American? And so, I just say, "Be careful."

Joe Biden's Defense Department approved a plea deal Wednesday for three of the conspirators behind the attacks of September 11, 2001. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and Walid Bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi will enter pleas before the military commission at Guantanamo Bay next week. //

The Pentagon announcement Wednesday didn’t include details, but a person familiar with the deal said that it involved a life sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. Prosecutors had been seeking the death penalty, but the torture of the defendants while in Central Intelligence Agency custody had clouded proceedings for years. //

President Biden learned of the plea bargain Wednesday, a National Security Council spokesman said.

“The president and the White House played no role in this process. The president has directed his team to consult as appropriate with officials and lawyers at the Department of Defense on this matter,” the spokesman said. //

The only reason we are going through this is because of a direct usurpation of congressional power by a crazed Anthony Kennedy and four fellow travelers. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 specifically placed review of the act outside the purview of the Supreme Court as allowed by Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution: "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." The actions of the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush should have resulted in Bush telling Kennedy to take a long walk on a short pier, and impeachment proceedings should have been brought against every federal judge who agreed to touch the case. But, alas, that would have required courage.

So, the final curtain is coming down on 9/11 and the Global War on Terror. Thanks to the Defense Department's total lack of transparency, it looks like that curtain will go down with as much controversy as when it came up.

The plan has three components:

1) The No One Is Above the Law constitutional amendment (lol) prohibiting criminal immunity for ex-presidents.

2) Supreme Court term limits that permit each president to appoint a justice every two years for an 18-year term.

3) Supreme Court Code of Conduct.

The first item is just a sop thrown to Biden's supporters to act as a soothing balm for their raging case of butthurt over being unable to put Trump in prison. //

As with the rest of this "reform," it is a monumentally unserious proposal. There is no national outcry to make this happen, and there aren't the votes in the House and Senate to pass it even if Chuck Schumer and Mike Johnson decide to take it seriously. //

NightTwister
29 minutes ago
I always say the same thing when anyone proposes a constitutional amendment: "Name the 38 states." //

Watch-tower
an hour ago edited
Net worth of the top 10 richest people in Congress (meaning 525 people are not listed): 2,059,900,000.
That's right, just 10 people; over 2 BILLION Dollars.

Net worth of all 9 Supreme Court Justices: 64,000,000.
Yep 64 million dollars divided by 9 people. Chief Justice Roberts accounts for 40% of that total.

We are more in need of reform in Congress than the Supreme Court. //

mopani Corn Pop 2 minutes ago

This does not come from Joe Biden, this comes from the Democrat Deep-State, gaslighting popular opinion on the structure of the Federal Government by treating SCOTUS as an inferior court, as if SCOTUS is subject to Congress.

It may be an unserious proposal, but it is another chip at the foundations of our Constitutional Republic, and as such deserves to be dealt with seriously.

I want to see it debated and destroyed on the House floor. A serious debate on the Senate floor would help too. It needs sunlight and to be dealt a death-blow.

Congress must defend SCOTUS as a co-equal branch so that SCOTUS can continue to do likewise. Failure to do so will ultimately result in an Imperial Executive.

These type of attacks should not be dismissed as unserious. They need to be curb-stomped as the destructive attacks that they are. Failure to deal with them in a serious way will allow them to be used as attack fodder against Republican or conservative candidates who want to preserve our Constitutional Republic.

The court decided what it did expressly because there's no way to make this system work if we don't elect people to do what's right. //

On Tuesday’s edition of the Times’ “Daily” podcast, Barbaro and Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak mulled over the ruling, and at the very end of the episode, Barbaro had his epiphany. “Another way to think about this ruling if you step way back,” he said, “is that it’s kind of the Supreme Court saying that when you elect a president, you have to accept, dear American people, that the Constitution gives them a tremendous amount of power and legal latitude to kind of do what they want …” //

He continued his revelation. “And we, the Supreme Court, are going to make it pretty hard to hold that president criminally responsible for their actions,” he said, “so, voters need to think really carefully about who they want to possess this level of immunity.” //

Immediately after the ruling, holding that a president carrying out his constitutional responsibilities can’t be held criminally liable for it once out of office (duh), Democrats and leftist triflers scurried to the Internet where they obnoxiously claimed the court had just given American presidents the authority to murder babies and rape nuns.

Hmm … Not seeing anything in Article II about that. Maybe I’m missing something. //

In short, anyone wanting to press charges against a former president for things he did while in office is going to have to prove with great certainty that it’s for a good reason and not because, say, they’re mad.

This was more or less implied and accepted for the last 230 years. Then 2016 happened and because Democrats refused to accept the results of an election, they decided it was time to see how far this country can bend before it snaps. You know, just like the true vanguards of decency and democracy that they are.

The court decided what it did expressly because there’s no other way to make this system work if we don’t elect people we trust to do the right thing to keep it going. To even flirt with the belief that it would be the right thing to criminally prosecute a former elected official — let alone a U.S. president — for challenging the results of an election, tells you a lot about who’s in power right now. And that their response to the ruling wasn’t, “Yeah, maybe we took it too far,” but, “So we can legally assassinate Trump, right?” says the rest.

They either don’t understand it, or they’re ready to end it.