Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Denies the Biden Administration's Request for Stay of the Injunction in Missouri v. Biden
Court Listener ^ | 7/10/23 | staff

Posted on 07/10/2023 1:01:15 PM PDT by CFW

Today, Judge Terry Doughty, of the United States District Court for the Western of Louisiana denied the request for a stay of the injunction against the Biden administration in the case of Missouri v. Biden.

The thirteen page order can be read here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.301.0_1.pdf


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: biden; censorship; doughty; firstamendment; freespeech; government; internet; missourivbiden

1 posted on 07/10/2023 1:01:15 PM PDT by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CFW

I have no doubt this lawless and illegitimate administration will simply ignore these rulings and continue to work with media companies to censor Americans.


2 posted on 07/10/2023 1:12:04 PM PDT by Pox (Eff You China. Buy American!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

A very good ruling and it’s well supported by his opinion.


3 posted on 07/10/2023 1:23:29 PM PDT by Bullish (Either we don't see it coming or they don't... But somebody's got it coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Does anyone have any doubt that they’ll STILL do it despite the court’s ruling? I don’t.


4 posted on 07/10/2023 1:25:16 PM PDT by FrankRizzo890
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

The govt is claiming the meaning of “protected free speech” is vague.

Defendants first argue the definition of “protected free speech” is vague because it refers to jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court, The United States Courts of Appeal, and United States District Courts. Defendants question whether an agency official would be required to research the laws of every federal court to determine what is “protected free speech.”

In order to clarify the definition of “protected free speech” in the Preliminary Injunction, this Court will modify the definition of “protected free speech” in n. 3 to read as follows:

“Protected free speech” means speech which is protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution in accordance with the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court.


5 posted on 07/10/2023 1:25:55 PM PDT by Steven Scharf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

No government officials will be held accountable for the Covid beat downs.


6 posted on 07/10/2023 1:44:11 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Freepers should take the time to read the order.

A dozen or so agencies not only admitted to the high crime of denying free speech, they defended their actions.

We’ll not hear a peep about this from Speaker McCarthy.

Just keep voting. Pretend it matters.


7 posted on 07/10/2023 1:52:17 PM PDT by Jacquerie (ArticleVBlog.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

I just read the whole motion. As laid out, it appears we are definitely past the ‘did they or did they not’ suppress free speech.


8 posted on 07/10/2023 2:37:54 PM PDT by Reno89519 (DeSantis 2024. Successful Governor, Honorable Veteran, Respectful, Respected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Another kick in the nutz for creepy Joe!


9 posted on 07/10/2023 2:38:09 PM PDT by bigbob (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Bad news for RICO Joe!


10 posted on 07/10/2023 3:19:30 PM PDT by matthew fuller (Democrats aren't about Socialism or Communism. They are about Ghettoism, genocide and infanticide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bullish
Too many pages, Judge. Be like Nancy Reagan:

Just say,

"NO!"

11 posted on 07/10/2023 4:25:27 PM PDT by imardmd1 (To learn is to live. To live is to teach another. Fiat Lux!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CFW

The very act of making an argument to a Court that the government can sensor protected free speech should be Contempt of Court and worthy of Extreme Monetary sanctions and JAIL TIME while the Officer of the Court is Disbarred.


12 posted on 07/10/2023 7:37:44 PM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson