p
BLOODBATH! He said BLOODBATH!!!
I guess I’m too stupid to follow the chain of events of what’s going on here and what’s the expected outcome. Legalese is not part of my decoder ring.
We need Q-Anon’s take. My understanding is that the super-elite will bathe themselves in the blood of children to enhance their longevity.
every headline should contain “bloodbath” to trigger the morons.
Bottom line: the author believes that SCOTUS is leaning toward a decision that would permit the Government to engage in censorship via the social media. This is truly frightening if it comes to that.
Not knowing anything at all about the case, this guy could just as well have been writing in Dutch.
Does not define or explain a damn thing.
Who are the plaintiffs, why did they have a bad day, and what was the Fifth District decision that he thinks will be reversed?
I hope he doesn’t write for a living.
Can we get an interpretation from this poetic gobbledy gook?
To me, it was not clear which way the justices were leaning, except for Kagan, Jackson and Sotomeyer, who always lean left. They seemed to be pushing in favor of the government.
The greatest good for the greatest number cannot be achieved if citizens are allowed to question mRNA "vaccines", EVs, the green agenda, the LGBTQIAA+ agenda, puberty blockers, abortion, gay marriage, CRT, DEI, 1619, etc.
We must all go along even if we're headed over a cliff.
“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways at the most important time. I mean, what would you have the government do?"
Oh... my.... God. Doesn't this constitutional illiterate even understand that the very purpose of the U.S. Constitution IS to hamstring the federal government?
Why is “BloodBath” suddenly the word of the week ?
-PJ
The case was originally Missouri vs. Biden where Biden was the Defendant? That made sense. Somehow this morphed into Murthy vs. Missouri and yet this author still speaks of the gooberment as the Plaintiff? That doesn't make much sense. What of the "/Respondent", somehow I thought that was the Defendant responding to the charges?
Does the Plaintiff somehow become the Respondent in an appeal?
In case it is even more unclear, Murthy is the foreign born Indian (dot) heritage current sturgeon general that just looks queer as a three dollar bill.
What did the non-biologist who takes her ignorance as a badge of honor have to say?
That was a rhetorical question.
Normally you cannot tell how justices will vote by their questions in oral argument, at least not the good ones. Often they will press the side they are inclined to go with hard to see if there is a weakness or argument in favor that they missed. The other side they have already provisionally discounted.
“Stories about Báthory quickly became part of national folklore.[11] Legends describing her vampiric tendencies, such as the tale that she bathed in the blood of virgins to retain her youth, were generally recorded years after her death and are considered unreliable.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_B%C3%A1thory
“government’s “encouragement” of censorship by the social media platforms”
Doesn’t sound like freedom of the press.
Would have been nice if the author told us why it was a bloodbath as opposed simply giving his conclusion.