Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A Supreme Court justice lamenting the first amendment being used against the government.
Justice Jackson ripped for worrying about the First Amendment 'hamstringing' government: 'Literally the point'
What did anyone with a brain expect from her?A Supreme Court justice lamenting the first amendment being used against the government.
Justice Jackson ripped for worrying about the First Amendment 'hamstringing' government: 'Literally the point'
I think Texas should protect its' borders. F the ruling. Save our state.
Interesting btw that Jackson hasn't tried to explain away her clueless remark,
Unfortunately it appears her side is the majority:I think Texas should protect its' borders. F the ruling. Save our state.
Interesting btw that Jackson hasn't tried to explain away her clueless remark,
There is a balance between a government agency calling a media company for information and the media company interpreting that call as a call for censorship.Maybe I am not reading it right But when I see Barrett asking if the FBI did ask media to censor
"In one example, Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed surprise when Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga questioned whether the FBI could call Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) to encourage them to take down posts that maliciously released someone’s personal information without permission, the practice known as doxxing."
And this vague statement with no actual quote means zippo
"Justice Brett Kavanaugh also signaled that a ruling for the states would mean that “traditional, everyday communications would suddenly be deemed problematic.”"
That doesn't make sense.
I think AP is trying hard and proving nothing
New ruling, looks like they did the right thing. Of course the idiots on the court who want to destroy our country dissented.I think I heard SCOTUS oks Texas to detain and deport illegals???
Radio on but was on phone
New ruling, looks like they did the right thing. Of course the idiots on the court who want to destroy our country dissented.
Supreme Court clears way for Texas to enforce immigration law, for now (msn.com)
First of all, this was a ruling on the stay order issued by the DoJ appeals court. So far now Texas can begin to apply its law. This can still drag on for weeks/months. There was no need for Paxton to stir the pot, but he did.I saw that just now on the news feed. Looks like a 180 degree turn around from yesterday. I think I have whiplash.
I hate to add another topic since the current issue is so critical to us here
But I really don't get the reasoning here. There are 2 cases where city commissioners used their personal accounts to share information. Each identified themselves as commissioners or school board members and shared personal AND government info. When citizens replied and criticized them on their personal email the pols blocked them
Amy C. Barrett
S]tate officials have private lives and their own constitutional rights—including the First Amendment right to speak about their jobs and exercise editorial control over speech and speakers on their personal platforms,” wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett for a unanimous Court."
How can they openly comment on government issues on their personal accounts and then whine when citizens respond??
The Court remanded both cases to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of the newly announced rule.
Supreme Court Issues Guidelines As To When Public Officials Can Block Constituents on Social Media
* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC