Phx-Suns.Net

All while his supporters whine about the supposed “victim mentality of the left.”

So they are saying that Jack needs to go through the federal appeals court? Not surprising, tbh.

I was also reading where they rarely use the exception to fast forward cases to the Supreme Court and only used it a few times ever until 2019. Since then they have done it 21 times, but this case isn’t important enough for that I guess.

Keeping an eye on this case. Could have a large and lasting impact.

A Supreme Court Justice who supports the insurrection. Awesome!

Supreme Court Rules Biden Administration Must Face False Debt Reporting Lawsuits
BY TYLER DURDEN
SATURDAY, FEB 10, 2024 - 10:50 AM
Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 8 rejected an attempt by the Biden administration to avoid a lawsuit stemming from false debt reporting, with the landmark ruling opening the door for consumers to sue federal agencies.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/sup ... g-lawsuits

BREAKING: Robert Kennedy Jr. has been granted a massive victory in his lawsuit against the Biden administration for colluding with social media companies to censor him and others.

RFK Jr. was able to win a preliminary injunction against the White House and several federal agencies as a federal judge ruled that the government was "insinuating themselves into the social-media companies’ private affairs and blurring the line between public and private action."

Judge Doughty said Kennedy provided substantial evidence that the Biden administration had coerced the companies into suppressing free speech related to Covid, elections, gas prices, climate change, gender, and abortion.

"It is certainly likely that Defendants could use their power over millions of people to suppress alternative views or moderate content that they do not agree with in the upcoming 2024 national election," the judge added.

The injunction is stayed until 10 days after the Supreme Court rules on Missouri v Biden, though it prevents the White House and other agencies from coercing social media companies to "remove, delete, suppress, or reduce... content containing protected free speech."

This is a major triumph for free speech in the country that RFK Jr. has won.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67 ... y-v-biden/

This made me laugh.

Mori Chu wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 01, 2024 9:59 am

This made me laugh.

I can't remember when Justice Roberts last voted along the Conservative side on anything worthwhile, but it is funny.

Yeah, a better photo would have put Amy Coney Barret there and Gorsuch more in the frame. Roberts has been more reasonable than the worst 4 MAGA justices.

The Maga judges who swore up and down they wouldn’t touch abortion when asked over and over their intentions in conformation hearings.

Nodack wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 02, 2024 1:19 am

The Maga judges who swore up and down they wouldn’t touch abortion when asked over and over their intentions in conformation hearings.

What's ironic here is that you really think it was a conformation hearing, and no one even batted an eye to correct you.

SCOTUS throws out the Colorado ruling taking Trump off the ballot.

Those damn Conservative judges again.

This was a 9-0 ruling. I'm on record as saying I agree with this decision. I don't think it would have been a good precedent for an individual state to make up its own arbitrary ruling on removing a major Presidential candidate from its ballots. We would have seen many other states doing similar things to both Trump and Biden. It would have been bad for our democracy.

Agreed. It would be good to always look at what the logical outcome would be on every decision.

Mori Chu wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 04, 2024 8:42 am

This was a 9-0 ruling. I'm on record as saying I agree with this decision. I don't think it would have been a good precedent for an individual state to make up its own arbitrary ruling on removing a major Presidential candidate from its ballots. We would have seen many other states doing similar things to both Trump and Biden. It would have been bad for our democracy.

So a state can’t prevent a Constitutionally ineligible candidate from being on their ballot, but they can prevent a Constitutionally eligible candidate (such as RFK, Jr.) from being on their ballot (by having signature requirements that are only realistic for the major parties to achieve)?

How is that just or democratic?

JeremyG wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:50 am

Mori Chu wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 04, 2024 8:42 am

This was a 9-0 ruling. I'm on record as saying I agree with this decision. I don't think it would have been a good precedent for an individual state to make up its own arbitrary ruling on removing a major Presidential candidate from its ballots. We would have seen many other states doing similar things to both Trump and Biden. It would have been bad for our democracy.

So a state can’t prevent a Constitutionally ineligible candidate from being on their ballot, but they can prevent a Constitutionally eligible candidate (such as RFK, Jr.) from being on their ballot (by having signature requirements that are only realistic for the major parties to achieve)?

How is that just or democratic?

It feels like there is a lot there that you don't understand or put the cart before the horse. I do agree with you on RFK jr. though.