5 ms·

>But Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump nominee at US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injuncti

>But Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump nominee at US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction imposing limits... 1. Him being a trump nominee makes me suspicious, but also sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. 2. Granting a preliminary injunction is a long way from winning a case. 3. There is pressure and there is pressure. "Social media companies should suppress X" is fine. "if they don't I will audit the fuck out of their taxes" is not. The "bully pulpit" has long been used for this purpose and is the president's only real power beyond bombing things and vetoing stuff... 4. How does this affect executive actions pressuring 101 other companies to do things that are MUCH more questionable (everything from giving the NSA access to private data to bullying companies into censoring movies)? Edit: 5. Plenty of Senators have gone on record demanding platforms make changes or face some or other legislative punishment. I wonder how/if this affects that?

scarface_74 3y ago
I’m definitely not a fan of Trump and I was also suspicious. But after reading the article, I don’t see anything objectionable with it especially with the carve outs. But censorship pressure very much happened on “both sides”. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-trump-twitter-files-collusion-biden-censorship-1234675969/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-tru...
- LatteLazy 3y ago
  I don't think the injunction is an issue either. If we were in the run up to an election or the middle of a pandemic then maybe? But now is actually a good time to answer this question imho...
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    So what if social media was spreading a rumor that the “secret Muslim president” was using troops to invade a state to impose marshal law. https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/02/403865824/texas-governor-deploys-state-guard-to-stave-off-obama-takeover https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/02/40386... Should the federal government intervene to keep citizens from attacking their own soldiers?
hgsgm 3y ago
If this a jury trial, or will the same judge makes the final trial ruling? The cited behavior is egregious, with Flaherty issuing orders and requesting specific takedowns, and doing so in an unprofessional and threatening manner that shows he is unfit for office. It's clear overreach beyond broadcasting the Executive's concerns about public health and requesting that companies do their part to help. The injunction may go too far in the other direction (but it is temporary), in the final ruling maybe less limiting to the Administration, but behavior like Flaherty's should be reined in.
- brasic 3y ago
  The plaintiffs have not demanded a jury, so yes, this judge will make the final ruling, although it will certainly be appealed. Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63290154/missouri-v-biden/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63290154/missouri-v-bid... To a first approximation, the appellate system is the only real mechanism for oversight of federal judges not engaging in outright misconduct. This is why packing the federal judiciary with intemperate partisans is so dangerous.
generj 3y ago
To points 1 and 2 this particular judge, amongst others, has been known to issue overly broad injunctions that reek of political bias. The injunction is almost more the point of these cases. If someone goes forum shopping, they have a decent chance of shutting down whatever Democratic policy they want until the injunction can be appealed. Or worse, a narrow injunction can conflict with a national injunction, which puts an administration in the position of choosing which binding injunction to follow. This recently occurred with an abortion drug [0]. [0] https://www.npr.org/2023/04/07/1159220452/abortion-pill-drug-mifepristone-judge-texas-amarillo https://www.npr.org/2023/04/07/1159220452/abortion-pill-drug...
moduspol 3y ago
> Him being a trump nominee makes me suspicious, but also sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. They don't, they just choose to do so. It's the same way pundits, authors, and broadcasters often get labeled "right-wing" or "conservative" while similarly left-wing ones don't get labeled. It's an editorial choice to call the reader's attention to it and imply relevance. Beyond that, I think this is unique relative to the normal "bully pulpit" pressure in that: * It's being used in order to suppress speech and opposition to the administration's policies, and * It was being done in secret, not exposed until later, and has otherwise shown no signs of stopping That makes it a bit different from, say, publicly pressuring lawmakers to reduce tariffs on sugar.
- hgsgm 3y ago
  After the Senate ran a party-line unpresidented and unconstitutional multi-year campaign to block Obama's nominations from entering office without even a hearing, and then packed the courts with their own judges, it absolutely is relevant who appointed a judge.
  - moduspol 3y ago
    "unprecedented", and you're right, up until the point of relevance. It's only relevant to this story to imply that its causal, i.e., an impartial judge might not have made the ruling. Or to your point, "this wouldn't have happened if Obama's appointee were there." It's openly questioning the judge's ability to be neutral. Regardless, though, I'm OK with it as long as it's labeled every time a Clinton, Obama, or Biden-appointed judge makes a decision that could be framed as political. That doesn't happen, though.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    In what way was that unconstitutional? It was democrats who changed the rules so they could block judges with a simple majority, not republicans. They did so assuming they’d be the ones in power.
  - quickthrowman 3y ago
    How is it unconstitutional? Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says that the President shall nominate, with the advice and consent of the Senate […] judges. The Senate did not consent, so Merrick Garland was not given a confirmation hearing. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
hgsgm 3y ago
4. Which movies were censored, by whom? 5. That's clearly the Legislature's job. The Legislature is not the Executive. They make new law, not apply existing law.
- LatteLazy 3y ago
  I am not sure it is legislators job to censor free speech? And if they passed such a law and it was somehow constitutional, it would then be the president's job to enforce it, so they are very much in the same boat wouldn't they? The current movie (and TV and music) censorship regimes are all based on an agreement between producers that they will not produce/distribute etc material that is legal but "bad" and in exchange the government will take no action against them like tax hikes etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code This is how the US has handled all sorts of "censorship that's not technically censorship" since day 1. The actions here seem to be basically the same thing but in our era it's social media not rap music or sitcoms.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
throw0101c 3y ago
> 1. Him being a trump nominee makes me suspicious, but also sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. See for example another nominee: > On December 1, the Eleventh Circuit ordered the case to be dismissed because Cannon "improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction" over it.[64][65][66][67][68] The Eleventh Circuit stated that Trump needed to show that the case met all four criteria under the Richey test for equitable jurisdiction over lawsuits for seized materials, but failed to do so for any criteria.[69][70][71] The Eleventh Circuit found that under Cannon, "the district court stepped in with its own reasoning" multiple times to argue in favor of Trump, sometimes even taking positions that Trump would not argue before the appeals court.[72][73][74] The Eleventh Circuit also found that when Trump did not explain what materials he still needed returned, or why, the "district court was undeterred by this lack of information".[69][75][76] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Cannon#Trump_v._United_States,_civil_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Cannon#Trump_v._United_... The panel that over-ruled Cannon were also majority-Trump nominees: * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/22/thorough-rebuke-judge-aileen-cannons-pro-trump-order/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/22/thorough-... * https://archive.fo/aR3KZ https://archive.fo/aR3KZ So it may be 'just' that particular judges are incompetent (which you would hope would be discovered in some kind of vetting process).
mullingitover 3y ago
> sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. It matters because Trump appointed, and the GOP Senate confirmed, a batch of federal judges who the bar association determined were Not Qualified, because they were found to be lacking in "integrity, professional competence or judicial temperament." The past two GOP presidents have eschewed bar association recommendations entirely and instead had their judicial appointments selected by the right-wing Federalist Society.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  No this doesn’t matter. The president and senate are who pick and approve the judges not the bar association.
  - LexiMax 3y ago
    This is non-responsive to their point.
    - edgyquant 3y ago
      Incorrect and regardless your comment is 100% useless
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - adfhbaidnioni 3y ago
    [flagged]
- 1MachineElf 3y ago
  >It matters because Trump appointed, and the GOP Senate confirmed Minor nitpick - Judge Terry Doughty's confirmation was bi-partisan. There were 98 votes in favor, no votes against, and only 2 abstaining. Even Bernie Sanders voted in favor of the confirmation. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1152/vote_115_2_00049.htm https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...
merpnderp 3y ago
The courts have historically taken a dim view of the government's "chilling of free speech."
- LatteLazy 3y ago
  I would disagree with that. Courts in the last 100 years have been more than happy to let government come to private arrangements where they "self" censor in exchange for not being targeted. Just look at things like TV networks refusing to show married couples in the same bed or recent treatment of Pornhub in some states. Maybe it's true for individual speech in the limited sense of them just speaking (not broadcasting)?
- ethanbond 3y ago
  The courts have long upheld the government's right to request action from private entities and for those private entities to comply or not to comply per their preference. That's all that happened here, just as what happened when the Trump Admin (and every administration prior) requested action from private entities.
NotYourLawyer 3y ago
When Trump complained about “Obama judges” he was rightly ridiculed. Why is ok to cast aspersions on judges nominated by Trump?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- afavour 3y ago
  Classic case of false equivalence: they both appointed judges therefore their actions must be equivalent, right? Did Obama ever nominate a judge that’s never tried a case in front of a court and failed to disclose his marriage to the White House counsel’s chief of staff? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Talley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Talley
  - NotYourLawyer 3y ago
    I didn’t realize that was the judge who wrote this opinion! Oh wait, he’s not. So whatever ad homs you have about him are irrelevant here.
    - afavour 3y ago
      > I didn’t realize that was the judge who wrote this opinion! If that's the criteria why did you bring up "Obama judges" and "judges nominated by Trump"? They clearly didn't write the opinion either. You don't get to broaden the scope of discussion then scold someone for responding within that scope.
      - NotYourLawyer 3y ago
        I was responding to someone who said: > Him being a trump nominee makes me suspicious
- plagiarist 3y ago
  I think because Obama didn't extort a foreign country, commit an insurrection, or sell top secret information to US adversaries.

scarface_74 3y ago

I’m definitely not a fan of Trump and I was also suspicious. But after reading the article, I don’t see anything objectionable with it especially with the carve outs. But censorship pressure very much happened on “both sides”. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-trump-twitter-files-collusion-biden-censorship-1234675969/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-tru...

LatteLazy 3y ago
I don't think the injunction is an issue either. If we were in the run up to an election or the middle of a pandemic then maybe? But now is actually a good time to answer this question imho...
- scarface_74 3y ago
  So what if social media was spreading a rumor that the “secret Muslim president” was using troops to invade a state to impose marshal law. https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/02/403865824/texas-governor-deploys-state-guard-to-stave-off-obama-takeover https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/02/40386... Should the federal government intervene to keep citizens from attacking their own soldiers?

hgsgm 3y ago

If this a jury trial, or will the same judge makes the final trial ruling? The cited behavior is egregious, with Flaherty issuing orders and requesting specific takedowns, and doing so in an unprofessional and threatening manner that shows he is unfit for office. It's clear overreach beyond broadcasting the Executive's concerns about public health and requesting that companies do their part to help. The injunction may go too far in the other direction (but it is temporary), in the final ruling maybe less limiting to the Administration, but behavior like Flaherty's should be reined in.

brasic 3y ago
The plaintiffs have not demanded a jury, so yes, this judge will make the final ruling, although it will certainly be appealed. Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63290154/missouri-v-biden/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63290154/missouri-v-bid... To a first approximation, the appellate system is the only real mechanism for oversight of federal judges not engaging in outright misconduct. This is why packing the federal judiciary with intemperate partisans is so dangerous.

generj 3y ago

To points 1 and 2 this particular judge, amongst others, has been known to issue overly broad injunctions that reek of political bias. The injunction is almost more the point of these cases. If someone goes forum shopping, they have a decent chance of shutting down whatever Democratic policy they want until the injunction can be appealed. Or worse, a narrow injunction can conflict with a national injunction, which puts an administration in the position of choosing which binding injunction to follow. This recently occurred with an abortion drug [0]. [0] https://www.npr.org/2023/04/07/1159220452/abortion-pill-drug-mifepristone-judge-texas-amarillo https://www.npr.org/2023/04/07/1159220452/abortion-pill-drug...

moduspol 3y ago

> Him being a trump nominee makes me suspicious, but also sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. They don't, they just choose to do so. It's the same way pundits, authors, and broadcasters often get labeled "right-wing" or "conservative" while similarly left-wing ones don't get labeled. It's an editorial choice to call the reader's attention to it and imply relevance. Beyond that, I think this is unique relative to the normal "bully pulpit" pressure in that: * It's being used in order to suppress speech and opposition to the administration's policies, and * It was being done in secret, not exposed until later, and has otherwise shown no signs of stopping That makes it a bit different from, say, publicly pressuring lawmakers to reduce tariffs on sugar.

hgsgm 3y ago
After the Senate ran a party-line unpresidented and unconstitutional multi-year campaign to block Obama's nominations from entering office without even a hearing, and then packed the courts with their own judges, it absolutely is relevant who appointed a judge.
- moduspol 3y ago
  "unprecedented", and you're right, up until the point of relevance. It's only relevant to this story to imply that its causal, i.e., an impartial judge might not have made the ruling. Or to your point, "this wouldn't have happened if Obama's appointee were there." It's openly questioning the judge's ability to be neutral. Regardless, though, I'm OK with it as long as it's labeled every time a Clinton, Obama, or Biden-appointed judge makes a decision that could be framed as political. That doesn't happen, though.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  In what way was that unconstitutional? It was democrats who changed the rules so they could block judges with a simple majority, not republicans. They did so assuming they’d be the ones in power.
- quickthrowman 3y ago
  How is it unconstitutional? Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says that the President shall nominate, with the advice and consent of the Senate […] judges. The Senate did not consent, so Merrick Garland was not given a confirmation hearing. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

hgsgm 3y ago

4. Which movies were censored, by whom? 5. That's clearly the Legislature's job. The Legislature is not the Executive. They make new law, not apply existing law.

LatteLazy 3y ago
I am not sure it is legislators job to censor free speech? And if they passed such a law and it was somehow constitutional, it would then be the president's job to enforce it, so they are very much in the same boat wouldn't they? The current movie (and TV and music) censorship regimes are all based on an agreement between producers that they will not produce/distribute etc material that is legal but "bad" and in exchange the government will take no action against them like tax hikes etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code This is how the US has handled all sorts of "censorship that's not technically censorship" since day 1. The actions here seem to be basically the same thing but in our era it's social media not rap music or sitcoms.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

throw0101c 3y ago

> 1. Him being a trump nominee makes me suspicious, but also sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. See for example another nominee: > On December 1, the Eleventh Circuit ordered the case to be dismissed because Cannon "improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction" over it.[64][65][66][67][68] The Eleventh Circuit stated that Trump needed to show that the case met all four criteria under the Richey test for equitable jurisdiction over lawsuits for seized materials, but failed to do so for any criteria.[69][70][71] The Eleventh Circuit found that under Cannon, "the district court stepped in with its own reasoning" multiple times to argue in favor of Trump, sometimes even taking positions that Trump would not argue before the appeals court.[72][73][74] The Eleventh Circuit also found that when Trump did not explain what materials he still needed returned, or why, the "district court was undeterred by this lack of information".[69][75][76] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Cannon#Trump_v._United_States,_civil_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Cannon#Trump_v._United_... The panel that over-ruled Cannon were also majority-Trump nominees: * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/22/thorough-rebuke-judge-aileen-cannons-pro-trump-order/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/22/thorough-... * https://archive.fo/aR3KZ https://archive.fo/aR3KZ So it may be 'just' that particular judges are incompetent (which you would hope would be discovered in some kind of vetting process).

mullingitover 3y ago

> sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. It matters because Trump appointed, and the GOP Senate confirmed, a batch of federal judges who the bar association determined were Not Qualified, because they were found to be lacking in "integrity, professional competence or judicial temperament." The past two GOP presidents have eschewed bar association recommendations entirely and instead had their judicial appointments selected by the right-wing Federalist Society.

edgyquant 3y ago
No this doesn’t matter. The president and senate are who pick and approve the judges not the bar association.
- LexiMax 3y ago
  This is non-responsive to their point.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    Incorrect and regardless your comment is 100% useless
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- adfhbaidnioni 3y ago
  [flagged]
1MachineElf 3y ago
>It matters because Trump appointed, and the GOP Senate confirmed Minor nitpick - Judge Terry Doughty's confirmation was bi-partisan. There were 98 votes in favor, no votes against, and only 2 abstaining. Even Bernie Sanders voted in favor of the confirmation. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1152/vote_115_2_00049.htm https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...

merpnderp 3y ago

The courts have historically taken a dim view of the government's "chilling of free speech."

LatteLazy 3y ago
I would disagree with that. Courts in the last 100 years have been more than happy to let government come to private arrangements where they "self" censor in exchange for not being targeted. Just look at things like TV networks refusing to show married couples in the same bed or recent treatment of Pornhub in some states. Maybe it's true for individual speech in the limited sense of them just speaking (not broadcasting)?
ethanbond 3y ago
The courts have long upheld the government's right to request action from private entities and for those private entities to comply or not to comply per their preference. That's all that happened here, just as what happened when the Trump Admin (and every administration prior) requested action from private entities.

NotYourLawyer 3y ago

When Trump complained about “Obama judges” he was rightly ridiculed. Why is ok to cast aspersions on judges nominated by Trump?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
afavour 3y ago
Classic case of false equivalence: they both appointed judges therefore their actions must be equivalent, right? Did Obama ever nominate a judge that’s never tried a case in front of a court and failed to disclose his marriage to the White House counsel’s chief of staff? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Talley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Talley
- NotYourLawyer 3y ago
  I didn’t realize that was the judge who wrote this opinion! Oh wait, he’s not. So whatever ad homs you have about him are irrelevant here.
  - afavour 3y ago
    > I didn’t realize that was the judge who wrote this opinion! If that's the criteria why did you bring up "Obama judges" and "judges nominated by Trump"? They clearly didn't write the opinion either. You don't get to broaden the scope of discussion then scold someone for responding within that scope.
    - NotYourLawyer 3y ago
      I was responding to someone who said: > Him being a trump nominee makes me suspicious
plagiarist 3y ago
I think because Obama didn't extort a foreign country, commit an insurrection, or sell top secret information to US adversaries.