Categories
Reprints from others. The Courts Uncategorized

Federal Judge: Biden Admin Must Cooperate With Social Media Collusion Lawsuit.

Hits: 11

Reprint from Pagegoo

Missouri and Louisiana filed a lawsuit against members of the Biden administration alleging collusion with Big Tech companies to censor speech.

The lawsuit alleges that “the Biden Administration colluded with and pressured social media giants Meta, Twitter, and Youtube to suppress and censor free speech on topics like the Hunter Biden laptop story, the Lab Leak Theory, and more.”

Attorney General Eric Schmitt provided examples of censorship in a Twitter thread.

A federal judge just ruled that the Biden administration must comply with the lawsuit and provide information.

Epoch Times reported:

A federal judge ordered the Biden administration on July 12 to comply with information requests in a lawsuit brought by Missouri and Louisiana officials about alleged federal government collusion with social media companies to suppress important news stories in the name of fighting so-called misinformation.

The lawsuit could help bring to light the Biden administration’s behind-the-scenes efforts to discourage the dissemination of information related to the advent of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus that causes the disease COVID-19 and the ongoing Hunter Biden laptop scandal, according to Eric Schmitt, Missouri’s Republican attorney general.

According to court documents, the states allege that the administration “colluded with and/or coerced social media companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social media platforms by labeling the content ‘disinformation,’ ‘misinformation,’ and ‘malinformation.’”

Missouri Attorney General celebrated the ruling.

“A federal court granted our request for discovery & documents from top ranking Biden officials & social media companies to get to the bottom of their collusion to suppress & censor free speech.

No one has had the chance to look under the hood before – now we do.”

 

6
Share
Categories
Biden Pandemic Opinion Politics Reprints from others. The Courts

Federal judge reverses Biden’s policy to limit ICE deportations

Hits: 17

Original can be found here.

Federal judge reverses Biden’s policy to limit ICE deportations.  We received another great court ruling on the status of the undocumented occupiers of our country. You just have to love thee rulings.

A federal judge struck down Joe Biden’s attempts to restrict the authority of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest illegal immigrants. Judge Drew Tipton ruled on Thursday that Biden violated earlier decisions made by U.S. Congress with his attempts to narrow the categories of illegal immigrants that can be arrested by ICE.

The judge also said Louisiana and Texas would likely succeed with their lawsuit against Biden, saying he also violated the Administrative Procedures Act.

5
Share
Categories
Elections Politics The Courts

Why Justice Thomas’s words on the Elections are so Important. “Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,” Justice Clarence Thomas declared Monday, when the Supreme Court decided — by one vote –to hear none of the 2020 election cases raising issues of voter fraud and illegal votes.

Hits: 113

 

“Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,” Justice Clarence Thomas declared Monday, when the Supreme Court decided — by one vote –to hear none of the 2020 election cases raising issues of voter fraud and illegal votes.

Why Justice Thomas’s words on the Elections are so Important. I feel that this is so important, so I’m inviting all the folks in my tag groups. Regardless of how you feel about the 2020 Elections, Justice Thomas said things that do point out where he thought politics were played and changes were made to existing laws. That can’t be denied I’m going to post his full response to the courts decision to not hear the Pennsylvania complaints. I’ll highlight what I feel were important points. As always be civil. No name calling. Justice Thomas.

“The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the ‘Manner’ of federal elections,” began Thomas. “Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example.”

“The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days,” Thomas explained, referring to one of the rejected cases. “These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”

“For more than a century, this Court has recognized that the Constitution operates as a limitation upon the State in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power to regulate federal elections,” he continued, quoting Supreme Court precedent. “Because the Federal Constitution, not state constitutions, gives state legislatures authority to regulate federal elections, petitioners presented a strong argument that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision violated the Constitution by overriding the clearly expressed intent of the legislature.”

“But elections enable self-governance only when they include processes that give citizens (including the losing candidates and their supporters) confidence in the fairness of the election,” Thomas added, quoting a recent Supreme Court case that held, “Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy.”

“Unclear rules threaten to undermine this system. They sow confusion and ultimately dampen confidence in the integrity and fairness of elections,” he explained. “To prevent confusion, we have thus repeatedly — although not as consistently as we should — blocked rule changes made by courts close to an election.”

The mail-deadline case did not impact enough votes to change the 2020 election. “But we may not be so lucky in the future,” Thomas warned. “Indeed, a separate decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may have already altered an election result.”

Thomas surmised:

That is not a prescription for confidence. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough. Such rule changes by officials who may lack authority to do so is even worse. When those changes alter election results, they can severely damage the electoral system on which our self-governance so heavily depends. If state officials have the authority they have claimed, we need to make it clear. If not, we need to put an end to this practice now before the consequences become catastrophic.

Read the rest here.

 

 

 

9
Share
Share
Share