4 ms·

What does trump have to do with this? (rhetorical question)

dapf 2y ago
[dead]
blooalien 2y ago
I believe that "Trump-stuffed SCOTUS" is referring to the current Supreme Court leaning hard in "conservative" (Republican) political directions / making decisions Trump would probably approve of.
- datascienced 2y ago
  But TFA is about legislation?
  - blooalien 2y ago
    They're likely thinking that if someone were to argue against such legislation, they could take it all the way to the supreme court only to be disappointed in the final decision? Thinking they'd end up deciding that this sort of legislation is indeed "necessary and proper"? That's just how I read it, though. They could mean something entirely different for all I know. ;)
- yonaguska 2y ago
  which is odd, because the justice most recently supporting the infringement of individual freedoms was Ketanji Brown, arguing on behalf of the government that there should be more limitations on the 1st amendment.
  - o-90 2y ago
    Where/in what case was this argument made?
    - yonaguska 2y ago
      The case brought by Missouri and Louisiana against the Biden admin concerning government collusion with big tech to censor misinformation during covid. She used the phrase, the first amendment "hamstrings" the government during emergencies. I couldn't find a clip on YouTube that's not padded with commentary, unfortunately. But it is troubling...as a supreme Court justice, one of your priorities is protecting the citizens from the government via the constitution, not the other way around.
      - o-90 2y ago
        You're talking about Murthy vs. Missouri (23-411). Justice Jackson poses a hypothetical on page 94 about "a new teen challenge that involved teens jumping out of windows at increasing elevations" and then asks respondents' council if "is it your view that the government authorities could not declare those circumstances a public emergency and encourage social media platforms to take down the information that is instigating this problem?" There are several back and forths on the following pages where respondents respond to the hypothetical and follow up questions are asked. Then Justice Jackson re-broaches the topic on page 116 and continues: "So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods. I mean, what would -- what would you have the government do? I've heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech. But, in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe, don't do it, is not going to get it done. And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So can you help me? Because I'm really -- I'm really worried about that because you've got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government's perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact with the source of those problems." His response continues to page 119. Someone is cherry-picking quotes and serving them to you so you will think "liberal Justices are against the first Amendment." https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-411_o759.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr...

dapf 2y ago

[dead]

I believe that "Trump-stuffed SCOTUS" is referring to the current Supreme Court leaning hard in "conservative" (Republican) political directions / making decisions Trump would probably approve of.

datascienced 2y ago
But TFA is about legislation?
- blooalien 2y ago
  They're likely thinking that if someone were to argue against such legislation, they could take it all the way to the supreme court only to be disappointed in the final decision? Thinking they'd end up deciding that this sort of legislation is indeed "necessary and proper"? That's just how I read it, though. They could mean something entirely different for all I know. ;)
yonaguska 2y ago
which is odd, because the justice most recently supporting the infringement of individual freedoms was Ketanji Brown, arguing on behalf of the government that there should be more limitations on the 1st amendment.
- o-90 2y ago
  Where/in what case was this argument made?
  - yonaguska 2y ago
    The case brought by Missouri and Louisiana against the Biden admin concerning government collusion with big tech to censor misinformation during covid. She used the phrase, the first amendment "hamstrings" the government during emergencies. I couldn't find a clip on YouTube that's not padded with commentary, unfortunately. But it is troubling...as a supreme Court justice, one of your priorities is protecting the citizens from the government via the constitution, not the other way around.
    - o-90 2y ago
      You're talking about Murthy vs. Missouri (23-411). Justice Jackson poses a hypothetical on page 94 about "a new teen challenge that involved teens jumping out of windows at increasing elevations" and then asks respondents' council if "is it your view that the government authorities could not declare those circumstances a public emergency and encourage social media platforms to take down the information that is instigating this problem?" There are several back and forths on the following pages where respondents respond to the hypothetical and follow up questions are asked. Then Justice Jackson re-broaches the topic on page 116 and continues: "So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods. I mean, what would -- what would you have the government do? I've heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech. But, in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe, don't do it, is not going to get it done. And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So can you help me? Because I'm really -- I'm really worried about that because you've got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government's perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact with the source of those problems." His response continues to page 119. Someone is cherry-picking quotes and serving them to you so you will think "liberal Justices are against the first Amendment." https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-411_o759.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr...