THE TYRANNY CONTINUES, SCOTUS FAILS
IS THIS CONSIDERED ELECTION INTERFERENCE?
It is ironic that many say the free speech right is first because it is the most important, however, they do not study or didn’t learn about the amendments to the U.S. Constitution correctly. When originally proposed, it wasn’t the first. There were actually 19 proposed, 12 were submitted to the states for ratification, but only 10 were approved.
The first two had to do with the number of representatives who would be elected based on the population in the states and the pay of those elected to Congress. Though not ratified at the time, the original second amendment finally made its way into the Constitution in 1992, ratified as the 27th Amendment, a full 203 years after it was first proposed.
Because the first two were rejected the third dealing with free speech moved up and became what is now the first. Even though it is important, we know from its actions that SCOTUS does not feel the same as most of us do about free speech. Perhaps that is true because its right to that sacred right is always maintained by it having the ability to have its words published.
It is for that reason that you should know about a posting that was made on the SCOTUS docket for March 18, 2024 stating:
23-411 MURTHY V. MISSOURI
DECISION BELOW: 2023 WL 6425697
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-30445
QUESTION PRESENTED:
. . . the government respectfully suggests the following questions presented: (1) Whether respondents have Article III standing; (2) Whether the government’s challenged conduct transformed private social-media companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated respondents’ First Amendment rights; and (3) Whether the terms and breadth of the preliminary injunction are proper.
…
CERT. GRANTED 10/20/2023
In other words, the Court is going to consider the case and the date is set for oral argument, March 18, 2024. To remind you of the details of the case, please refer to my postings of July 15, 2023, September 14, 2023, and September 19, 2023.
It was not surprising under current circumstances to see SCOTUS not give a quicker hearing to this important case. As you recall, because of its determinations the social media platforms will still be able to coordinate with the government to silence free speech before the election this year. All they have to do is label something “disinformation” or “misinformation” to block or remove those from their platforms who wish to post certain comments about the upcoming election. Their “misinformation” or “disinformation” may be the truth and you will not be able to hear or read it. It is clear that SCOTUS cares little about our right to freedom of speech as listeners or people interested in hearing different sides of issues or about candidates.
The questions presented are from the government petition because it is appealing the determinations of the trial court and District court. As to the questions presented, you might want to consider the number of times SCOTUS has decided there is not Article III “standing” which it could use because of question presented (1) to justify not deciding the case. The Court used that excuse, for example, in not deciding the issue when Texas sued the states varying their election procedures in violation of the Constitution. That made the results of the 2020 election void but SCOTUS apparently didn’t care.
Regarding issue (2) the Court will apparently decide if there was enough evidence to show “Whether the government’s challenged conduct transformed private social-media companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated respondents’ First Amendment rights”.
What is surprising about this issue is that an appellate court is not supposed to decide whether there is enough evidence presented to a trial court to support an issue because it doesn’t hear the evidence. An appeal is solely on the record. It doesn’t see the witnesses, hear their voices as they testify, see their body language, determine whether their cross-examination affected their direct testimony in order to make a determination about the weight of their testimony as does the trial court or a jury. If an appellate court rests its determination on this basis, it is because it wants to reverse the lower court and doesn’t want to give a valid reason.
The last issue to be addressed “(3) Whether the terms and breadth of the preliminary injunction are proper.” is also interesting because you may recall the Court stayed the preliminary injunction so the social-media platforms could continue to interfere in citizens’ rights of free speech. This is a little late to address this issue and of course would have no effect anyway until their opinion is issued which could be at the end of June. Maybe if the Court rules in favor of the citizens they could play catchup trying to reverse the damage done by the comments that were removed or blocked by the social-media platforms. What a system we have allowed the Court to create!
Our Republic, to continue to exist, depends on an informed public willing to maintain it. The purpose of these posts is to bring to your attention that SCOTUS, meant to be the weakest branch of the federal government, has now become the strongest and is an oligarchical, tyrannical, branch.
Keep tuned, the saga continues.
Donald C Brockett, author of “The Tyrannical Rule Of The United States Supreme Court; How The Court Has Violated The Constitution”© 2024 Donald C Brockett Printed book & ebook available at donaldbrockettauthor.com
Contact: donsbooks@proton.me
Facebook: CAST-Citizens Against Supreme Court Tyranny
#SCOTUS #Tyranny #concernedcitizen
#SCOTUS #Tyranny #concernedcitizen Facebook CAST-Citizens Against Supreme Court Tyranny
To comment on the newsletter, send an email to donbsbooks@gmail.com
Donald C. Brockett is a former Washington state attorney, who served 6 terms as Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney and is now retired after a total of 52 years between public and private practice.
During his time in the prosecutor’s office, he tried numerous cases in the District and Superior courts of Spokane County. For many years, he handled all appeals in the Washington State Supreme Court and later in that court and the newly created Court of Appeals for Division III. He has argued cases in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court.
Published with permission of dcbrockett.substack.com