Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”
Yet one more case kicked down the road on standing.
Why do they take those cases in the first place if they are unwilling to rule on them
“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”
Yet one more case kicked down the road on standing.
The standard Robert's sidestep.
“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”
Yet one more case kicked down the road on standing.
Why do they take those cases in the first place if they are unwilling to rule on them
"Supreme Court allows White House to press social media companies to remove disinformation."
“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”
Yet one more case kicked down the road on standing.
They did rule. Just not in the way some people are demanding.Why do they take those cases in the first place if they are unwilling to rule on them
Nope."Not having standing" is such BS
"Supreme Court allows White House to press social media companies to remove disinformation."
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the White House and federal agencies such as the FBI may continue to urge social media platforms to take down content the government views as misinformation, handing the Biden administration a technical if important election-year victory.
Of immediate significance, the decision means that the Department of Homeland Security may continue to flag posts to social media companies such as Facebook and X that it believes may be the work of foreign agents seeking to disrupt this year’s presidential race.
What is your problem here?
My problem is that it is wrong and should not be happening. it is not the Govt's job to decide what is "true" or not. I do not need a fucking nanny state keeping me safe from lies on the internet.
The key word here is "urge" and it's not about being kept from lies as in bs information. The government is concerned with foreign agents and agencies and...
wake up
Do not go down the rabbit hole with the boy who cried wolf
“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”
Yet one more case kicked down the road on standing.
<nitpick> I think the issue is finished, based on standing, all Federal courts will rule this way forevermore ... </nitpick>
My claim is Democrats put microchips in the Covid vaccine on behalf of the Communist Chinese ... how does this harm anyone other than myself? ... if you haven't been harmed, you can't sue me ... if my statement is harmless, why shouldn't it be protected from government censorship? ... USMB is allowed to retain my posts for as long as they want to, Free Speech baby ...
That's just the way it is in the United States ... always has been, always will be ... after 248 years we should be mature enough to deal with the misinformation ...
I suspect it's to inform the plaintiffs how to do it right the next time.Why do they take those cases in the first place if they are unwilling to rule on them
Yes, the Fed Govt with all its power to punish companies "urges" someone to do something, it is more than a simple suggestion
It is not the job of the Govt to keep me safe from lies on the internet.
A lower court can do the same thingI suspect it's to inform the plaintiffs how to do it right the next time.
Coaching as it were.
Nobody decides what is true.My problem is that it is wrong and should not be happening. it is not the Govt's job to decide what is "true" or not. I do not need a fucking nanny state keeping me safe from lies on the internet.
"someone to do something" doesn't quite cut it.Yes, the Fed Govt with all its power to punish companies "urges" someone to do something, it is more than a simple suggestion
It is not the job of the Govt to keep me safe from lies on the internet.
