Biden Wins; Justice Alito OUTRAGED!

Joe Biden

( – In what could be deemed a regrettable legal victory for President Joe Biden, which has outraged one of the conservative US Supreme Court Justices, Samuel Alito, the highest court of the land has ruled in favor of the administration in a vital case regarding government censorship of social media.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, determined that the plaintiffs did not possess the legal standing required to file a lawsuit, National Review reports.

Justice Barrett authored the prevailing opinion, stating that two states and five social media users lacked the standing necessary to challenge the extent of collaboration between government entities, nonprofits, and technology platforms in regulating social media content.

“We begin—and end—with standing. At this stage, neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. We therefore lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of the dispute,” Justice Barrett clarified in her opinion.

This case, known as Murthy v. Missouri, emerged from a lawsuit filed by the states of Missouri and Louisiana against the Biden administration, which alleged that federal agencies collaborated with social-media platforms and third-party nonprofits to censor conservative viewpoints online.

A district court had previously ruled in July that federal agencies were prohibited from coordinating with social-media companies or nonprofits to coerce them into restricting speech.

The Fifth Circuit upheld this injunction partially last fall, finding that several federal agencies had violated the First Amendment.

“This evidence indicates that the platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment. To be sure, the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices. But the Fifth Circuit, by attributing every platform decision at least in part to the defendants, glossed over complexities in the evidence,” Justice Barrett noted.

Justice Samuel Alito, in a vehement dissent, criticized the Supreme Court for not fulfilling its responsibilities in a crucial free-speech case.

“What the officials did in this case was more subtle than the ham-handed censorship found to be unconstitutional in Vullo, but it was no less coercive. And because of the perpetrators’ high positions, it was even more dangerous. It was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so,” he argued.

“If a coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by. That is not a message this Court should send,” Alito added.

Among the plaintiffs were three doctors, Drs. Jay Bhattacharya, Martin Kuldroff, and Aaron Kheriaty, who opposed restrictive coronavirus lockdowns.

Copyright 2024,